Disposed

The Branch Manager v. Kalayarasi

Madras HC16 Jul 2024CMP(MD)/7352/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company sought condonation of a 364-day delay in appealing a motor accident compensation award, challenging only quantum. The court dispensed with notice to the driver-respondent and condoned the delay subject to payment of Rs.1,000 to the District Siddha Medical Officer.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 364 days condoned on payment of Rs.1,000/- costs; notice to third respondent dispensed with; matter listed for compliance reporting on 23.07.2024.

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

¶1

C.M.P.(MD) No.7352 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Sixteenth day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Four

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Honble Mr.Justice N.SESHASAYEE and The Honble Mr.Justice P.VADAMALAI

¶6

C.M.P.(MD) No.7352 of 2024 in C.M.A.(MD) SR No.29179 of 2024

¶7

THE BRANCH MANAGER ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NO.11/1B, 3RD FLOOR, G.V.COMPLEX, BYE PASS ROAD, MADURAI 10. ... PETITIONER/APPELLANT Vs 1 KALAYARASI

¶8

2 RAMAR S/o.KUTHALINGA NADAR 3 RAMAR ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶9

Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to Condone the delay of 364 days in preferring the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and thus render justice.

¶10

1/3

¶11

C.M.P.(MD) No.7352 of 2024

¶12

PRAYER IN CMA(MD)SR.No.29179/2024:

¶13

Pleased to call for the records pertaining to the Fair and Decreetal Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Court(FTC) in MCOP.No.137 of 2019 dated 15.11.2022, set aside the same by allowing the appeal.

¶14

ORDER : This Civil Miscellaneous Petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.P.PETHU RAJESH, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.D.SRINIVASA RAGHAVAN, Advocate on behalf of the Respondents No.1 & 2, the court made the following order:-

¶15

Heard Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Srinivasa Raghavan, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.

¶16

The third respondent is the driver of the alleged offending vehicle and the notice sent to him is returned with an endorsement 'refused'.

¶17

The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle challenges only the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶18

Since the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation is not in question, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

¶19

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, the delay of 364 days in filing the appeal is condoned, on condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees only) to the credit of the District Siddha Medical Officer, CCRI PKM (Account No.10767823177, IFSC: SBIN0000898, State Bank of India, Periyakulam Branch) on or before 23.07.2024.

¶20

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

¶21

2/3

¶22

C.M.P.(MD) No.7352 of 2024

¶23

Post the matter on 23.07.2024 under the caption 'for reporting compliance'.

¶24

sd/16/07/2024 / TRUE COPY /

¶25

/07/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶26

ABR TO

¶27

THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FTC), MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TENKASI.

¶28

COPY TO: THE DISTRICT SIDDHA MEDICAL OFFICER, CCRI PKM, PERIYAKULAM.

¶29

ORDER IN C.M.P.(MD) No.7352 of 2024 in C.M.A.(MD) SR No.29179 of 2024 Date :16/07/2024

¶30

SA/JGB/SAR. /19.07.2024/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023.

¶31

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

¶32

3/3

The Branch Manager v. Kalayarasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Kalayarasi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R.Mahendran, Vs B.Selva Gomathi Kumar

The Superintending Engineer Vs S.Vijayalakshmi

K.Subban Vs the Secretary to Govt

V.Jhanisirani Vs the Director

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by Vs P.Manisekaran, S/o.P.Packiam

M.Janet Amala Arul Jothi Vs Samuel Raj