IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI

and

CMP No.21693 of 2025

V.Ganagaraju

S/o Venkatasamy,

D.No.3/103, Gudisaganapalli Village,

Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

Petitioner(s)

Vs

1. Krishnaveniyamma

W/o Shankar,

Res at No.3/155, Tharanichandiram Street,

Theertham Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

2.Minor Madhu Nisha

D/o Shankar,

Res at No.3/155, Tharanichandiram Street,

Theertham Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

3.Minor Keerthi Gowda

S/o Shankar,

Res at No.3/155, Tharanichandiram Street,

Theertham Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

Minor rep by NF/Mother Krishnaveniyamma

4.Vijaya

W/o Raman,

Res at No.3/155, Tharanichandiram Street,

Theertham Village, Krishnagiri Taluk and District.

Respondent(s)

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the order dated 21.07.2025 in IA.No.2 of 2024 in MCOP No.109 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District Court, Hosur.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Subramaniam for Mr.A.Venkateshkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.S,Gokul for R1 to R4

ORDER

Heard Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Gokul, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4.

2. The Petitioner was arrayed as 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P.No.109 of

2019 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Hosur, in a claim for compensation. Admittedly, even according to the claimants/respondents, the vehicle was owned by the first respondent and the 2nd respondent was the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. The second respondent did not contest the proceedings and was set ex-parte and subsequently, an order came to be passed in M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2019. The execution petition was filed only against the revision petitioner/2nd respondent, without proceeding against the owner of the vehicle. After receiving notice in execution petition, the revision petitioner has chosen to file an application to set aside the ex parte order in the M.C.O.P proceeding, by taking out an application in I.A.No.2 of 2024, for condoning the delay of 575 days. The said application has been dismissed, against which, the present revision petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, first and foremost, contends that the Tribunal has fell in error in proceeding to pass an award against the revision petitioner, who is admittedly the driver, by observing in paragraph no.2 at page no.3 of the award in M.C.O.P’s, that the first respondent is the owner of the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 24 M 6870 and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Consequently, the award has directed that both the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.22,11,000/- to the claimants, together with 7.5% per annum. Therefore, he contends that the award did not even take into account the fact that the revision petitioner was only the driver against whom, no liability can be fastened and the entire liability would fall only on the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, he submitted that an opportunity may be given to the revision petitioner to contest the M.C.O.P.No.109 of 2019 on merits.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants would submit that even after the receipt of notice in execution petition on September 2023, the revision petitioner has chosen to move an application for setting aside the award only in March 2024 and there has been delay of 6 months, which has not been explained anywhere in the affidavit and the Tribunal has rightly taken note of the same and dismissed the application for condonation of delay. He would also submit that the reference to the petitioner as the insurer is only an inadvertent error, since the vehicle involved in the accident was not a lorry, but it is only a car. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the present revision petition.

5. I have carefully heard the submissions made by t