C.R.P.(MD) No.961 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 12.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

C.R.P.(MD) No.961 of 2023

Ramasamy

rep. through his guardian

father Karanthamalai

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.S.Parthiban

2.The Divisional Manager,

United India Insurance Company,

(Union Bank of India Building, Upstairs),

Madurai Road,

Virudhunagar Taluk,

Virudhunagar District.

... Respondents

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

of India, to set aside the order dated 14.10.2022 made in I.A.No.526 of

2022 in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2019 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal cum Additional District Court, Virudhunagar.

For Petitioner

: M/s.Shivashankari

For Second Respondent : Mr.T.Suthakaran

*****

_____________

Page No. 1 of 6

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.961 of 2023

O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the

impugned order dated 14.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal cum Additional District Court, Virudhunagar [for brevity,

hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”] in I.A.No.526 of 2022 in

M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2019.

2. By the impugned order dated 14.10.2022, the Tribunal has

dismissed I.A.No.526 of 2022 filed by the petitioner represented through

his guardian/father for withdrawal of the compensation deposited to the

credit of M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2019.

3. The petitioner was minor when he filed M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2019

before the Tribunal. The accident is said to have been taken place on

24.09.2018. The petitioner was aged about 16 years on the date of

accident. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.59,94,500/- as

compensation to the petitioner by its Judgment and Decree dated

06.10.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2019. The relevant portion of the

Judgment and Decree dated 06.10.2020 in M.C.O.P.No.15 of 2019 reads

as under:-

_____________

Page No. 2 of 6

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.961 of 2023

3)Nkw;gb

nkhj;j

,og;gPl;Lj; njhifapy;>

kDjhuH ,stH vd;gjhy; mtUf;F ,Jehs;

tiu kUj;Jtr; nryTnra;j tiff;fhf mtuJ

je;ijAk;

ghJfhtyUkhd

jpU.fue;jkiy

vd;gtH 30 rjtPjk; jw;NghJ ngw;Wf;nfhs;syhk;

vd;Wk;> kPjKs;s 70 rjtPj njhifiz ,stH

kDjhuH jFepiy milAk; (Nk[uhFk;) fhyk;

tiuf;Fk; ,stH kDjhuH ngahpy; epue;ju

itg;gPl;by; itf;fTk;> me;j itg;gPl;bypUe;J

tUk; tl;bj;njhifia mtuJ je;ijAk;

ghJfhtyUkhd jpU.fue;jkiy vd;gtH MW

khjj;jpw;F xUKiw vLj;Jf;nfhs;syhk; vd;Wk;

cj;jutplg;gLfpwJ.

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner attained age of majority and therefore,

I.A.No.370 of 2022 was filed to declare the petitioner as major which was

allowed. Under these circumstances, the petitioner represented through

his guardian/father filed I.A.No.526 of 2022 before the Tribunal to

withdraw the entire compensation amount. The Tribunal has rejected the

prayer of the petitioner represented through his guardian/father with the

following observations:-

So, if the entire amount is permitted to be

withdrawn it will be against the interest of the

petitioner/claimant. As already discussed, only in

the month of January, 2022 the petitioner has

withdrawn a sum of Rs.20,65,997/-. As per the

order, the guardian of the petitioner is entitled to

withdraw the accrued interest and in the interest of

the petitioner/claimant, this court is of the view

that the entire sum cannot be permitted to be

withdrawn by the guardian at this stage.

_____________

Page No. 3 of 6

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

C.R.P.(MD) No.961 of 2023

5. In the impugned order dated 14.10.2022 while dismissing the I.A.

filed by the petitioner represented through his guardian/father, the

Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, (2020) 4 SCC 413.

6. Though the petitioner has filed this petition in his individual

name, the