A. Kodeeswaran Vs. P. Palanisamy and Others

A. Kodeeswaran vs P. Palanisamy and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Madurai Decided Nov 21, 2016

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1187321

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1187321
Court: Chennai Madurai High Court
Judge: S.M. Subramaniam
Decided On: Nov 21, 2016
Case Number: CMA (MD) No. 1334 of 2007
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

A. Kodeeswaran

Respondent

P. Palanisamy and Others

Excerpt

.....about 10.00 a.m at virudhunagar-alagapuri main road near sengundrapuram. the injured victim filed an application in mcop.no.27 of 2003 before the motor accident claims tribunal, sub-court, virudhunagar, and the tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded rs.1,50,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum, mainly fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle in entirety. the owner of the vehicle preferred the present appeal, challenging the award passed by the tribunal, on the ground that he cannot be held fully responsible to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the vehicle was insured. 2. the learned counsel for the 9th respondent/national insurance company ltd., advanced his arguments, by stating that the insurance policy was taken by the owner of the vehicle only with effect from 14.10.1999 to 13.10.2000 and the accident took place on 13.09.1999 and on that day, there was no insurance policy with the 9th respondent company and hence, the company is not liable to pay any compensation to the victim. 3. the insurance policy was also marked as ex.r1 before the tribunal and the tribunal considering the fact that there was no insurance policy at all, fixed the entire liability only on the owner of the vehicle. hence, there is no error in the finding of the tribunal warranting interference. accordingly, the award dated 10.07.2003 passed in mcop.no.27 of 2003 on the file of the motor accident claims tribunal (additional district court, fast track court), virudhunagar, is confirmed. 5. the appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not deposited already. on such deposit, the respondents 1 to 7/claimants, are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, through.....

Full Judgment

(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order and decree dated 10.07.2003 passed in MCOP.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar.)

JUDGMENT

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. It is the case of unfortunate fatal accident took place on 13.09.1999 about 10.00 a.m at Virudhunagar-Alagapuri main road near Sengundrapuram. The injured victim filed an application in MCOP.No.27 of 2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub-Court, Virudhunagar, and the Tribunal by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.1,50,000/- as total compensation with interest at 9% per annum, mainly fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle in entirety. The owner of the vehicle preferred the present appeal, challenging the Award passed by the Tribunal, on the ground that he cannot be held fully responsible to pay the compensation in view of the fact that the vehicle was insured.

2. The learned counsel for the 9^th respondent/National Insurance Company Ltd., advanced his arguments, by stating that the insurance policy was taken by the owner of the vehicle only with effect from 14.10.1999 to 13.10.2000 and the accident took place on 13.09.1999 and on that day, there was no insurance policy with the 9^th respondent company and hence, the company is not liable to pay any compensation to the victim.

3. The insurance policy was also marked as Ex.R1 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal considering the fact that there was no insurance policy at all, fixed the entire liability only on the owner of the vehicle. Hence, there is no error in the finding of the Tribunal warranting interference. Accordingly, the award dated 10.07.2003 passed in MCOP.No.27 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court, Fast Track Court), Virudhunagar, is confirmed.

5. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs, to the credit of the claim petition, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not deposited already. On such deposit, the respondents 1 to 7/claimants, are permitted to withdraw their shares as apportioned by the Tribunal, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, through RTGS, by filing necessary applications before the Tribunal.

Same Court & Year Chennai Madurai · 2016 Same Parties A. Kodeeswaran vs P. Palanisamy and Others Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S.M. Subramaniam