Santhi, v. L.Ramesh

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.11.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

1. Santhi

2. Minor Sarathkumar

3. Minor Kabilan (Petitioners 2 and 3 are represented through their mother 1st petitioner) ... Petitioners versus

1. L.Ramesh

2. The Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., 10/4/4 Thaha Plaza, II Floor, South Bye Pass Road, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli.

3. S.Arumugasamy

4. The National Insurance Company Ltd., Kovilpatti, through its Branch Manager, Door No.135-1, Rose Building, Main Road, Kovilpatti Town, Thoothukudi District.

... Respondents 1/6

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti, to dispose of M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2014, within a stipulated period.

For Petitioners : Mr.T.Balaji For R1, R3 and R4: No appearance For R2 : Mr.Sakthivel

ORDER

The petitioners are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Kovilpatti. They filed the above petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- in respect of death of one Murugaiah, husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners 2 and 3, in a road accident that took place on 23.05.2010. Since the above petition is pending from the year 2014, they have filed the present Civil Revision Petition seeking a direction for early disposal of M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2014. 2/6

2. Though notice was served on all the respondents and their names have been printed in the cause list, except the second respondent/Insurance Company, there is no representation on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4.

3. Mr.Sakthivel, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submits that he is not having any serious objection for issuing a direction to the Tribunal for early disposal of M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2014. He further submits that in that petition, the second respondent/Insurance Company also cross examined P.W.1 to P.W.3 and R.W.1 and there is no delay on the part of the second respondent/Insurance Company.

4. This Court considered the rival submissions made and perused the materials available on record.

3/6

5. It appears that the claim petition filed in the year 2014 is still pending. It is also in the stage of cross examination of R.W.1/first respondent. The petitioners and the fourth respondent have to cross examine R.W.1.

6. Since the claim petition is pending from the year 2014 and it is almost at the fag end of the trial, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kovilpatti, is directed to conclude the trial and dispose of M.C.O.P.No.9 of 2014, within in a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

7. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

10.11.2022 ogy Index : Yes / No.

Internet: Yes / No.

4/6

To The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Kovilpatti 5/6

B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy 10.11.2022 6/6