The Branch Manager v. Balasundari

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI CRP (NPD) NO. 4873 of 2025 & CMP.No.24585 of 2025 The Branch Manager Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd., Aranthangi Taluk, Pudukottai District.

Petitioner/4th Respondent Vs 1.

Balasundari W/o. Late Selvam ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner 2.

Rukhmani Sundaresan W/o. Sundaresan ... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent 3.

The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., No.77-79, Royapettah High Road Chennai - 600 014.

... 3rd Respondents/2nd Respondent 1/4

4.

Chinnappan ... 4th Respondent/3rd Respondent PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.12.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) F.A.I/c, Nagapattinam.

*** For Petitioner(s): Mr. Siva Kollapan B

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner was the fourth respondent in M.C.O.P proceedings on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam. The claimant sought for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for alleged injuries sustained by him in an accident on 10.03.2019. The Tribunal after trial awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and fastened 50% of the liability on the revision petitioner as there are two vehicles involved in the accident 2/4

namely, as Innova and a TATA ACE, which is insured with the present revision petitioner.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the revision petition has been filed challenging negligence alone and not the quantum.

4. I find that there is absolutely no iota of evidence to establish that there was no negligence on the part of the TATA ACE vehicle. The Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence oral and documentary and come to the conclusion that both the insurers would be equally and jointly liable to pay compensation to the victim. Considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, I do not see any grounds made out, challenging the well reasoned award of the Tribunal. Hence, there is no merits in the Revision.

5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 3/4

P.B. BALAJI, J.

vsg

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner by mistake has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- though the liability of the petitioner is only at Rs.10,000/-, together with proportionate interest.

7. The petitioner is at liberty to file application for excess amount and if any such application shall be filed, the Tribunal shall entertain the same.

13-10-2025 vsg To Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) F.A.I/c, Nagapattinam.

CRP (NPD) NO. 4873 of 2025 & CMP.No.24585 of 2025 4/4