Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Subbuthai

Madras HC18 Nov 2024CMP(MD)/6184/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a civil miscellaneous petition filed by an insurance company seeking to condone a delay of 1233 days in re-presenting an appeal against a motor accident tribunal award. The court rejected the claim that misplacement of records constituted reasonable cause.

What did the court decide?

The petition for condonation of delay of 1233 days in re-presenting the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. SR 24000 of 2016 was dismissed and the appeal was rejected in limine.

The Branch Manager Vs Subbuthai — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.11.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

¶6

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019 in C.M.S.A(MD)No.SR 24000 of 2016

¶7

The Branch Manager The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.

¶8

... Petitioner/Appellant

¶9

-Vs-

¶10

1.Subbuthai 2.Minor Subashini (Minor rep. through her natural guardian/mother viz., 1^st respondent)

¶11

3.Rajalakshmi 4.Sankaranarayanan 5.Alagarsamy

¶12

... Respondents/Respondents

¶13

PRAYER in C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019: Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 1233 days in representing the above CMSA(MD)No.SR 24000 of 2016.

¶14

_________ Page 1 of 5

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019

¶17

Prayer in C.M.S.A(MD)No.SR 24000 of 2016 : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 27.02.2015 passed in MCOP No.89 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Sub-Judge), Sankarankovil.

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sarvagan Prabhu

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in order to condone the delay of 1233 days in representing the appeal, in respect of the award dated 27.02.2015 passed in MACOP No.89 of 2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Sankarankovil.

¶21

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶22

3.The claimants four in number had filed MCOP No.89 of 2013

¶23

before the the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub-Court, Sankarankovil, for the death of Balasubramaniam who died in a road accident that occurred

¶24

_________ Page 2 of 5

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019

¶27

on 28.07.2013. The Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs.35,15,736/by an order dated 27.02.2015. The Insurance Company not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, preferred Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the said judgment. It was filed before this Court and the same was returned for re-presenting for want of certified copy of the judgment in MCOP No.89 of 2013.

¶28

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the said judgment was circulated to him by the Insurance Company in the month of March 2017 and he was not in a position to locate the returned bundle and mixed up with the other bundles. Therefore, the delay of 1233 days occurred in re-presenting the above appeal. No doubt the delay is a long delay.

¶29

5.The law is well settled that in matters of condoning the delay,

¶30

the Courts have to be liberal. But on the other hand, the petitioner has to give a reasonable cause for the delay occurred.

¶31

_________ Page 3 of 5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019

¶34

6.The reason put-forth in the petition is that the returned bundle

¶35

was mixed with the other bundles in the office. To locate the bundle there was a delay of 1233 days, ie., three years and three months. The reasons putforth cannot be taken as a reasonable cause and therefore, necessarily the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is rejected at SR stage itself.

¶36

18.11.2024

¶37

NCC:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Internet::Yes/No To

¶38

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Sankarankovil.

¶39

_________ Page 4 of 5

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019

¶42

R. KALAIMATHI,J.

¶43

¶44

C.M.P(MD)No.6184 of 2019 in C.M.S.A(MD)No.SR 24000 of 2016

¶45

18.11.2024

¶46

_________ Page 5 of 5

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Branch Manager v. Subbuthai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Subbuthai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Chandirasekaran Vs Saroja

Mahesh Babu Vs Krishnapriya

Mayilvaganam Vs Claims Manager

M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Vs Minor Marimuthu

The Branch Manager Vs M.Suriyanivas

Abdul Salam Vs The Managing Director