Muthulakshmi v. P.Jayraman
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2439 of 2012 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.09.2020
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.2439 & 2440 of 2012 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2012 in CRP(MD).No.2439 of 2012 1.Muthulakshmi 2.P.Vijayakumar 3.P.Satheesh Kumar
...Petitioners/Petitioners/Petitioners
in both CRPs vs.
1.P.Jayaraman 2.The Divisional Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., II Floor, Valmer Lawrle House, No.628, Anna Road, Chennai - 600 018.
...Respondents/Respondents/Respondents
in both CRPs PRAYER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the fair and executable order passed in I.A.Nos.47 & 48/2012 in M.C.O.P.No.1053/09 dated 25.06.2012 on the file of the V Addl. District Judge, Madurai. For Petitioners : Mr.P.Paranthaman For Respondents : No appearance
ORDER
The petitioners are the claimants in MCOP.No.1053 of 2009. The second respondent in the case is the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle involved in the matter. The enquiry in the case was over and necessary oral and documentary evidence have been produced. At this point of time, the claimants/revision petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.48 and 47 of 2012 respectively for reopening the case and for recalling R.W.2.
2.The case was sought to be reopened on the ground that the revision petitioners want to produce certain documents to have it confronted to R.W.2. Vide I.A.No.47 of 2012, they wanted to recall R.W.2, who is the Official of the Insurance Company for the said purpose.
3.The document that was sought to be produced is a photostat copy of the Insurance Policy of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company contested the matter and stated that the original policy of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.2439 of 2012 the offending vehicle itself has been filed and it was marked as R.W.2. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal felt that there is no need to allow these applications. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the same.
4.Heard, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 5.Prima facie, this Court is satisfied with the reasons stated by the learned trial Judge. This Court does not find anything material in the grounds of revision to impeach the correctness of the reasoning of the Tribunal for dismissing the appeal. 6.Therefore, necessarily this Court cannot interfere with these orders under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the result, these two Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed and accordingly, fair and executable order passed in I.A.Nos.47 & 48 of 2012 in M.C.O.P.No.1053/09 dated 25.06.2012 on the file of the V Addl. District Judge, Madurai is set aside and given the circumstances, without cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
7.It is made clear that in the eventuality of the claimants proving their entitlement to obtain some compensation from the Tribunal, they will not be entitled to any interest for the period from 26.08.2012 to this date(08.09.2020) since it was the ill advised strategy of the petitioners/claimants which has led to the present petitions and this Court, does not want to grant any unfair advantage to the claimants to exploit the delay to benefit themselves.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.Side) // True Copy // / /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) tsg-2 To 1.The V Addl. District Judge, Madurai 2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P.(PD)(MD)Nos.2439 & 2440 of 2012 and M.P(MD).No.1 of 2012 in CRP(MD).No.2439 of 2012 08.09.2020 AP(16/09/2020) 2 P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2