Allowed¶51

V.Muruganandham v. Habibunnisha

Madras HC1 Aug 2025CRP/3364/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Setting aside ex parte decree/award in motor accident claim; maintainability despite Insurance Company's application under Section 170 Motor Vehicles Act; Section 170 permission limited to collusion; negligence fixed merely on FIR; return of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC with Section 5 Limitation Act condonation; CRP under Article 227 Constitution of India; Madras High Court; direction to Tribunal to number and dispose of application; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned return order dated 30.06.2025 set aside; Tribunal directed to number the petitioners' application and dispose of it on its own merits and in accordance with law; no costs. ¶51

V.Muruganandham Vs Habibunnisha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether an application to set aside an ex parte decree in a motor accident claim is maintainable when the Insurance Company has already filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. +1 more

¶38

Court's answer

Merely because an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed, it does not mean that the ex parte decree cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioners.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

When a decree is passed against a person, that person is entitled to seek the setting aside of the ex parte decree.

¶49

Key takeaways

Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act is granted only when there is collusion with the person against whom the claim is made; in the present case the Tribunal directed the petitioners to pay compensation and fixed negligence on them merely on the basis of the FIR.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227, Constitution of India — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Udumalpet had, on 12.01.2024, fixed liability on the petitioners (vehicle owners) in MCOP No.286 of 2022 and passed an award against them ex parte (they had remained ex parte for non-filing of counter), exonerating the Insurance Company; negligence was fixed merely on the basis of the FIR. When the petitioners sought setting aside of the ex parte decree along with a Section 5 Limitation Act condonation petition (Order IX Rule 13 CPC), the Tribunal returned the application on 30.06.2025 as not maintainable because the Insurance Company had filed an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Held (N. Sathish Kumar J.): mere filing of a Section 170 application does not mean the ex parte decree cannot be set aside at the instance of the persons against whom it was passed; a person against whom a decree is passed is entitled to seek its setting aside, Section 170 permission being confined to collusion cases. The return order dated 30.06.2025 was set aside and the Tribunal directed to number and dispose of the application on merits; no costs.

¶1

CRP No. 3364 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-08-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

CRP No. 3364 of 2025

¶7

V.Muruganandham

¶8

S Kalaipriya

¶9

Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

Habibunnisha

¶12

2.Minor Divyashree Minor Rep by her guardian Mother and next friend Habibunnisha/1st Respondent,

¶13

3.Minor Sudarsan Minor Rep by his guardian Mother and next friend Habibunnisha/1st Respondent

4.Krishnamoorthy

5.Kaleeswari

Respondent(s)

PRAYER

This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India

¶19

has been filed to set aside the return/docket order dated 30-06-2025 passed in

¶20

1/5

¶21

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

¶22

CRP No. 3364 of 2025

¶23

unnumbered I.A.No. Of 2025 filed under order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act in MCOPO No.486 of 2022 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Udumalpet direct the Tribunal to take the petitions on file and dispose of them on merits in accordance with law by allowing this CRP and thus render justice

¶24

For Petitioner(s): D.R.Arun Kumar

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Challenge has been made to the order of the Trial Court dated 30.06.2025,

¶27

returning the application filed to set-aside the exparte order passed against the petitioners in MCOP No.286 of 2022, along with an application to condone the

¶28

delay.

¶29

Though the petitioners were represented by counsel in MCOP No.286

¶30

of 2022, they remained exparte due to non filing of counter. After perusing the

¶31

records and hearing the submissions of the learned counsel, the Tribunal fixed

¶32

the liability on the petitioners herein and passed an award against them on 12.01.2024, and exonerated the Insurance Company,i.e., respondents 3 and 4.,

¶33

from the liability.

¶34

2/5

¶35

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

¶36

CRP No. 3364 of 2025

¶37

Therefore, the petitioners have filed an application to set aside the

¶38

decree passed against them along with a petition to condone the delay. However, the Tribunal returned the application on 30.06.2025 stating that since Insurance Company has already filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, the application to set aside the exparte decree is not maintainable. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the said return.

¶39

No doubt, when the owner of the vehicle does not properly contest the

¶40

claim, the Insurance Company is permitted under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available

¶41

to the person against whom the claim is made. However, such permission is granted only when there is collusion with the person against whom the claim is

¶42

made, not in further case. Whereas in the present case, the Tribunal has passed

¶43

an order directing the petitioners to pay the compensation. The negligence has been fixed on them merely on the basis of the FIR.

¶44

3/5

¶45

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

¶46

CRP No. 3364 of 2025

¶47

Therefore, this Court is of the view that merely because an application

¶48

under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed, it does not mean

¶49

that the exparte decree cannot be set aside at the instance of the petitioners. When a decree is passed against a person, that person is entitled to seek the

¶50

setting aside of the exparte decree.

¶51