Juliet Dola Rose v. G.Muthu Krishnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.06.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR C.R.P.No.
of 2024 and C.M.P.No s . 8478 and 8481 of 2024 Juliet Dola Rose ... Petitioner Vs.
1.G.Muthu Krishnan 2.M.Jayanthi Kumari 3.The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
No.1, Bharathi Road, Arcot Woodlands Building Cuddalore.
... Respondents PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950, praying to direct the Special Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-I, Cuddalore to allow the marking of the document which is, the Deposition of Muthu Krishnan in C.C.No.1926/2012 before the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, through Juliet Dola Rose, the petitioner herein and the 1 st respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2014.
For Petitioner : Dr.A.E.Chelliah, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Prathaban For Respondents 1 & 2 : No appearance For Respondent-3 : Mr.J.Michael Visuvasam 1/6
ORDER
The petitioner/first respondent in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2014 has filed this petition for the reason that one of the document, which the petitioner proposed to mark, was not allowed to be marked by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, which would cause great prejudice to the petitioner.
2.The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the car bearing registration No.TN-07-BH-1487. On 27.07.2011, at about 10.45 p.m. it is alleged that her car hit the motor bike bearing registration No.TN-07-BJ-0321 rode by one Rupankumar and caused grievous injuries to him, who subsequently succumbed to injuries and the motorcycle was completely damaged. The parents of the deceased, the first and second respondents herein filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2014, in which, the petitioner is the first respondent and the third respondent herein is the second respondent.
2/6
3.The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the first respondent herein was examined as P.W.2 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012, during the cross examination, the first respondent gave explanation that six months prior to the accident dated 27.07.2011, his son sustained injuries and took treatment with his family doctor and thereafter he met with an accident with the same bike, which is involved in the present case. But in column No.22(A)(i) of the claim petition it was mentioned that the said Rupankumar was not involved in any other road accident earlier. For this contradiction, the petitioner wanted to mark the evidence of Muthu Krishnan in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 but it was denied. Earlier the petitioner filed a petition in Crl.O.P.SR.No.7604 of 2024. This Court, by order dated 04.03.2024, granted liberty to the petitioner to file a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the present petition has been filed. Her limited prayer is to mark the evidence of first respondent in C.C.No.1926 of 2012 as an exhibit. 3/6
4.Though notice was served to the respondents 1 and 2 and their names are printed in the cause-list, they have not entered appearance either in person or through their counsel.
5.The learned counsel for the third respondent/Insurance company submitted that in this case the petitioner's car bearing registration No.TN-07BH-1487 met with an accident, caused damage to the motor bike bearing registration No.TN-07-BJ-0321 on 27.07.2011 near Avvayar Statue, Beach Road. The rider of the bike Rupankumar sustained injuries, later succumbed to the injuries. The D6, Anna Square Police Station, Chennai registered a case in Crime No.249/2011 for offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, later charge sheet filed in C.C.No.1926 of 2012, in which, the first respondent was examined as PW2, who is the father of the deceased Rupankumar. He further submitted that the Insurance Company has got no objection in marking the documents.
4/6
6.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that M.C.O.P.No.2433 of 2014 is at the stage of trial. As regards the Insurance Company, they got no objection in marking the evidence of first respondent. It is the Court which objected for marking the deposition of Muthukrishnan/first respondent, as there was an objection from the first respondent. In view of the above, this Court directs the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Cuddalore to permit the petitioner to mark the evidence of first respondent/Muthu Krishnan, who was examined as PW2 in C.C.No.1926 of 2012, as an Exhibit in the M.C.O.P. case. 7.With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is Allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
14.06.2024 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non speaking order rsi 5/6
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi To 1.The Special Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Cuddalore.
2.The VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
C.R.P.No.
of 2024 and C.M.P.No s . 8478 and 8481 of 2024 14.06.2024 6/6