Review application filed to set aside an appeal judgment dismissing a compensation claim for a motor accident. The court held that the submitted documents lacked diligence and did not meet statutory grounds for review, leading to dismissal.
Review application dismissed; no order as to costs passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.64 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 02.09.2024 Delivered on :01.10.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.64 of 2024 in CMA (MD). No.1045 of 2023
Manikandan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Nagarajan
2.The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited, Anguvilai Building, North Car Street, Nagercoil, Agasteeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District.
.. Respondents
Prayer:- This Review Application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to review the Judgment and Decree passed in CMA (MD) No.1045 of 2023, dated 19.12.2023 on the file of this Court and begs to allow the claim petition as prayed for.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vamanan
For Respondents : No Appearance
O R D E R
1/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.64 of 2024
(Order of the Court was made by P.B.BALAJI, J.)
This Review Application has been filed seeking to review our judgment dated 19.12.2023 in CMA (MD) No.1045 of 2023.
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, Insurance Company, we confirmed the findings of the Tribunal that the accident itself had not been proved and consequently, the claimant was not entitled to any compensation.
2/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.64 of 2024
notice referring to the additional typed set of papers filed along with the Review Application containing certain documents which were not exhibited either before the Tribunal or before us at the time of hearing of the Appeal. Referring to the same, the learned counsel for the Review Applicant would state that the accident was in fact true and the claimant was possessed of sufficient documentary evidence to establish the same.
3/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.64 of 2024
could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, (ii) on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
4/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.64 of 2024
error in appreciating the evidence on record. However, on examining the
oral and documentary evidence independently and also considering the
findings of the Tribunal, we found that there was no reason to interfere with the order dismissing the claim petition. Pursuant to the said dismissal of the Appeal, the Review Applicant has now come forward seeking Review by placing reliance on new material which was neither pleaded and placed before the Tribunal nor before us when the Appeal was heard and disposed of.
and consequently the Review Application is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(T.K.R.J.) & (P.B.B.J) 01.10.2024
Internet : Yes Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No rkp
5/6
Rev.Aplc.(MD)No.64 of 2024
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J., and P.B.BALAJI,J
rkp
Pre-delivery Order in Rev.Aplc.(MD) No.64 of 2024 in CMA (MD). No.1045 of 2023
01.10.2024
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is made out when evidence was not placed due diligenceously at any prior stage.
Whether discovery of new documentary evidence justifies setting aside a final judgment dismissing a claim for compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manikandan
T. Nagarajan
The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Limited
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
P.B. BALAJI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
