IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 24.06.2024 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND C.R.P. No.3297 of 2019 and CMP.No.21417 of 2019 Mrs.Parveen ... Petitioner Vs.

V.A.Mohammed Ghouse (died)

1. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Motor Third Party Claims Department, No.6, Fourth Floor, Reliance House, Haddows Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 006. 2. K.Shanmugham 3. R.Jeevarathinam

4. M/s.Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., Sipcot Industrial Park Phase III, No.4, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram 602106.

5. R.Vijayakumar

6. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Garden Apartments, First Floor, No.68, Purasawalkam High Road, Chennai 600007.

7. M/s.Parveen Travels Pvt. Ltd., No.115/06, Santha Vellore Village, S.V.Chattiram, Sriperumbudur. ... respondents Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (Special Sub-Court-I, Motor Accidents Claim Petitions), Small Causes Court, Chennai in MP.No.1184 of 2018, dated 24.06.2019 in MCOP.No.3076 of 2008.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.N.Sugesh For Respondents for R1 : Mr.P.Suresh Srinivasan for R2 : Mr.S.Arunkumar for R6 : Mr.S.Chandran

ORDER

This CRP is filed against the order dated 24.06.2019 in MP.No.1184 of 2018 in MCOP No.3076 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Sub Court-I, Court of Small Causes, Chennai. 2. The petitioner herein is the second petitioner and the first respondent herein is the third respondent in MCOP.No.3076 of 2008. The respondent Nos.2 to 7 are the respondents in the said MCOP. The parties as arrayed in MCOP will be referred hereinafter for the convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the son of the petitioner i.e., V.M.Farook Ahamed died on 28.12.2007 due to the injures caused in an accident that occurred on 19.12.2007, and therefore the petitioner claimed compensation by filing a claim petition in MCOP.No.3076 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai. The respondent Nos.1 to 5 and the seventh respondent were set exparte on 05.01.2009 and 07.10.2014, respectively. The sixth respondent had only contested the claim petition. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal by its order and decree dated 1^st November 2016 allowed the claim petition awarding compensation for a sum of Rs.21,21,056/- with costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of numbering of the claim petition i.e., 05.09.2008 till realisation, payable by the third and sixth respondents equally. The third respondent and sixth respondents are directed to deposit the said amount to the credit of the Bank Account of the Claims Tribunal directly by NEFT or RTGS within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The Tribunal also passed order for apportionment of the award amount to the petitioner. The sixth respondent has deposited 50% of their share of award of compensation before the Tribunal.

4. Subsequently, the first respondent herein/third respondent in MCOP filed MP.No.1184 of 2018 before the Claims Tribunal under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the order and decree dated 01.11.2016 passed in MCOP.No.3076 of 2008. The Claims Tribunal allowed the said petition by its oder dated 24^th June 2019. Against the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the second claimant.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/second claimant submits that the order dated 24.06.2019 in MCOP.No.3076 of 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence, and the probabilities of the case and is thus liable to be set aside.

6. The learned counsel contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the order dated 01.11.2016 in MCOP.No.3076 of 2008 was passed on merits and that the another Insurance Company, viz., New India Assurance Co. Ltd., had duly contested the matter, let in evidence and thereafter only order was passed on merits in MCOP and as s