Allowed¶7

S.Dhivya v. J.Chandrasekaran

Madras HC19 Nov 2025CMP/17127/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; 1709 days delay; enhancement of compensation; M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2091 of 2016; award dated 19.11.2018; typographical error; Section 152 C.P.C.; I.A.No.636 of 2019; certified copy application 22.09.2023; delay of 18 months and 5 days; denial of interest for delayed period; appeal presented 06.11.2023; C.M.P.No.17127 of 2025; C.M.A.SR.No.144092 of 2023; Madras High Court; Dr.G.Jayachandran J.; Mummineni Sudheer Kumar J.; Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; Registry to number appeal.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed: delay of 1709 days in filing the appeal condoned, subject to the condition that the claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of 18 months and 5 days in the event of any enhancement of compensation; Registry directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in order. ¶7

S.Dhivya Vs J.Chandrasekaran — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

C.M.P.No.17127 of 2025

¶2

¶3

C.M.A.SR.No.144092 of 2023

¶4

DR. G.JAYACHANDRAN,J. and

¶5

MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR,J.

¶6

ORDER

¶7

[Order of the Court was made by Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.]

¶8

The claimant in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.2091 of 2016 has preferred the

¶9

present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, along with a petition

¶10

to condone the delay of 1709 days in preferring the appeal.

¶11

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant submits

¶12

that the award of the claim petition dated 19.11.2018 had a typographical

¶13

error regarding the compensation amount. Hence, a petition under Section

¶14

152 of C.P.C., was filed to rectify the said typographical error. The

¶15

application, numbered as I.A.No.636 of 2019, was considered by the

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

Tribunal and order was passed only on 17.03.2022. Thereafter, the claimant

¶19

contacted the counsel to prefer the appeal and in the said process, the delay

¶20

of 1709 days has crept in.

¶21

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company

¶22

submitted that since the delay is on the part of the claimant, in the event of

¶23

any enhancement of compensation order in this appeal, the claimants would

¶24

not be entitled for any interest for the delayed period of 1709 days.

¶25

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant submitted

¶26

that the delay partly due to the typographical error crept in the award and

¶27

therefore, the client cannot be mulcted with the denial of interest for the said

¶28

period.

¶29

5. This Court, on verifying the records, finds that the award dated

¶30

2/5

¶31

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

¶32

19.11.2018 was sought to be amended by the claimants through their application in I.A.No.636 of 2019 and the same was allowed on 17.03.2022.

¶33

The decreetal order passed in I.A.No.636 of 2019 reveals that the application under Section 152 C.P.C., carrying out the typographical error was presented on 02.01.2019 and order was passed on 17.03.2022. However, the copy application was made only on 22.09.2023 I.e., with a delay of 18 months and 5 days, for which no sufficient reason has been assigned by the petitioner/appellant.

¶34

6. It appears that the copy application made on 22.09.2023 was

¶35

processed by the Registry in the District Court, which called for stamps, the copy was made ready on 06.10.2023 and delivered on the same day to the

¶36

applicant. The appeal before this Court presented on 06.11.2023.

¶37

7. In view of the above, the delay in filing the appeal stands

¶38

3/5

¶39

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