M/s. Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited, Vs G.R. Manikandan

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1354 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 07.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1354 of 2023 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)No.6731 of 2023

¶8

M/s.GO Digit General Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, Atlantis.95, 4^th B Cross Road, Karamangala Industrial Layout, 5^th Block, Bengaluru - 560095, Karnataka State. ... Petitioner Vs

¶9

G.R.Manikandan 2. Parasuraman ... Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Subordinate judge for MCOP Cases), Madurai dated 09.09.2022 in I.A. No. 77 of 2021 in MCOP. No. 1862 of 2019 and allow the petition filed by the Petitioner.

¶11

1/6

¶12

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

¶13

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1354 of 2023

¶14

For Petitioner	: Mr.N.Shyllappa Kalyan
For R espondents	: Mr.K.Sathishkumar for
	Mr.Subash Law Office for R1

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order

¶17

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner Insurance Company seeking deletion of its name from the array of parties in the original petition.

¶18

2 . The first respondent herein filed a Motor Accident Claim

¶19

petition seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident involving a lorry owned by the second respondent and allegedly insured with the petitioner Insurance Company. The said OP was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that there was no valid insurance policy issued by the petitioner company in favour of the lorry involved in the accident. The instant application has been filed seeking to delete the name of the petitioner company from the array of parties mainly on the ground that the insurance policy number furnished by the first respondent is not relating to any policy issued in favour of the

¶20

2/6

¶21

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

¶22

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1354 of 2023

¶23

vehicle involved in the accident and in the absence of anything on record to suggest that the petitioner issued policy covering the offending vehicle, the name of the petitioner insurance company ought not to have been included in the array of parties.

¶24

3. The said application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal and aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition has been filed.

¶25

4. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶26

5 . Whether the petitioner issued a valid policy covering the offending vehicle owned by the second respondent is a matter to be decided based on the evidence to be let in by the parties. Before commencement of an enquiry, without affording an opportunity to the first respondent/claimant to lead evidence regarding the insurance coverage of the offending vehicle, we cannot decide the question whether the petitioner is the insurer of the offending vehicle or not. The trial

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1354 of 2023

¶30

Court rightly appreciated the position and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, seeking deletion of its name from the array of parties. I do not find any error in the impugned order.

¶31

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

¶32

There shall be order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

07.07.2026

¶34

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶35

vsm

¶36

4/6