Vinayagamoorthi Vs Thandeeswaran

(Appeal against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3495 of 2018 dated 30.09.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes, Chennai).

¶15

Vinayagamoorthi ... Petitioner/ Appellant

¶16

Vs

¶17

1. Thandeeswaran

¶18

2. United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Silingi Building, 4 th Floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents / Respondents

¶19

This case is taken up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. Mr.P.Terry Chella Raja, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.D.Baskaran, learned counsel for the second respondent are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶20

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶21

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,32,500/- [Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Two Thousand and Five Hundred Only], together with interest at 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization with

¶22

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

¶23

2

¶24

costs (excluding the period of dismissal for default, if any). Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal.

¶25

After due deliberation and consultation, both the appellant/claimant and the second respondent/Insurance Company have entered into compromise on the following terms :

¶26

(i) The appellant/claimant is agreed to settle for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/(Rupees Two Lakhs only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, as full quit compensation.

¶27

(ii) It is informed by the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company that the Insurance Company had already deposited the Tribunal award amount together with interest at the rate of 7.5% and the claimant has withdrawn the same. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by the Insurance Company within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.3495 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes, Chennai).

¶28

(iii) On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount deposited by the second respondent/Insurance Company without filing any formal petition.

¶29

The Tribunal is directed to transfer the amount through RTGS/NEFT to the parties concerned on proper identification in accordance with the terms of the award, without insisting on any formal permission petition.

¶30

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

¶31

3

¶32

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.

¶33

Vinayagamoorthi

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant

¶35

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Silingi Building, 4 th Floor, No.134, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006. Counsel for the 2^nd respondent

¶36

This Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.

¶37

The full Court fee paid shall be refunded to the appellant in the manner provided under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

Judge

Member

Member

ms

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

4

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

ms/ksa-2

To:The parties/Advocate concerned

¶47

Copy to: 1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Court of Small Causes, Chennai). 2.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai. 3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶48

4.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras.+2 copies

¶49

C.M.A.No.602 of 2022

¶50

13.06.2026

¶51

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

Vinayagamoorthi v. Thandeeswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayagamoorthi v. Thandeeswaran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lieutenant Colonel Ganesan S (Retd), Vs Mrs. Shanmuga Priya

Mrs. Chinnammal Vs R.Mathialagan and another

Govindakudi Appakutty Ayyar Charity Vs v.Mohanachandran, IAS and 2 others

M.Manikandan Vs G. Gunasekaran

Perumal Vs S.N.R. Trans

M.Saraswathi Vs J.Balaji