Gowri and Vs. Irulandi,

Gowri And; Vivedha vs irulandi,; Othchammal,; Ramamoorthy And; National Insurance Company Limited

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 22, 2010

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/848452

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/848452
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: M. Jaichandren, J.
Decided On: Apr 22, 2010
Case Number: C.R.P. (PD) No. 3964 of 2009 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009
Subject: Motor Vehicles

Case Summary

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

- What remains to be seen is as to whether Pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. If these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of th...

Key legal issue: Motor Vehicles
Acts & sections: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8A, 9 and 10; ;Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163 and 163(1); ;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 2(11)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gowri And; Vivedha

Advocate T. Selvam, Adv.

Respondent

irulandi,; Othchammal,; Ramamoorthy And; National Insurance Company Limited

Advocate S.S. Swaminathan, Adv. for R1 and R2

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8A, 9 and 10; ;Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 163 and 163(1); ;Motor Vehicles Act, 1939; ;Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Section 2(11)

Excerpt

- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16].....not maintainable, as the first respondent cannot claim a right over the property of the pre-deceased son. while filing the petition, a wrong information had been given stating that there are no other legal heirs, except the petitioners therein. in fact, the petitioners in the present civil revision petition are the wife and the daughter of the deceased person.4. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents had submitted that the motor accidents claims original petition, in m.c.o.p. no. 724 of 2006, had been filed before the motor accidents claims tribunal (court of subordinate judge, tiruppur), by the parents of the deceased person. he had submitted that the petition is maintainable, as per section 163 of the motor vehicles act, 1988, which reads as follows:163. scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents.--(1) the central government may, by notification in the official gazette, make a scheme specifying, the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the general insurance corporation, the form, manner and the time within which applications for compensation may be made, the officers or authorities to whom such applications may be made, the procedure to be followed by such officers or authorities for considering and passing orders on such applications, and all other matters connected with, or incidental to, the administration of the scheme and the payment of compensation.(2) a scheme made under sub-section (1) may provide that---(a) a contravention of any provision thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for such term as may be specified but in no case exceeding three months, or with fine which may extend to such amount as may be specified but in no case exceeding five hundred rupees or with both;(b) the powers, functions or duties conferred or imposed on any officer or authority by such scheme may be delegated with the prior approval in writing of the central government, by such.....

Full Judgment

ORDER

M. Jaichandren, J.

1. This Civil Revision petition has been filed to set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Tiruppur, in taking on file M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2006, dated 12.7.2006, and to reject the said petition.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had stated that the petition, in M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2006, had been taken on file by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur, without following the procedures established by law. The petition had been taken on file, without noticing that the first respondent cannot have any remedy and as such, he cannot file the Motor Accident Claims Original Petition, as per Section 8(A), 9 and 10 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as he does not come under the category of Class I heirs.

3. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that the petition is not maintainable, as the first respondent cannot claim a right over the property of the pre-deceased son. While filing the petition, a wrong information had been given stating that there are no other legal heirs, except the petitioners therein. In fact, the petitioners in the present civil revision petition are the wife and the daughter of the deceased person.

4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the first and the second respondents had submitted that the Motor Accidents Claims Original Petition, in M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2006, had been filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Court of Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur), by the parents of the deceased person. He had submitted that the petition is maintainable, as per Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:

163. Scheme for payment of compensation in case of hit and run motor accidents.--(1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make a scheme specifying, the manner in which the scheme shall be administered by the General Insurance Corporation, the form, manner and the time within which applications for compensation may be made, the officers or authorities to whom such applications may be made, the procedure to be followed by such officers or authorities for considering and passing orders on such applications, and all other matters connected with, or incidental to, the administration of the scheme and the payment of compensation.

(2) A scheme made under Sub-section (1) may provide that---

(a) a contravention of any provision thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for such term as may be specified but in no case exceeding three months, or with fine which may extend to such amount as may be specified but in no case exceeding five hundred rupees or with both;

(b) the powers, functions or duties conferred or imposed on any officer or authority by such scheme may be delegated with the prior approval in writing of the Central Government, by such officer or authority to any other officer or authority.

(c) any provision of such scheme may operate with retrospective effect from a date not earlier than the date of establishment of the Solatium Fund under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, as it stood immediately before the commencement of this act:

Provided that no such retrospective effect shall be given o as to prejudically affect the interest of any person who maybe governed by such provision.

Further, Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, defines a legal representative as a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased, and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character, the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. As such, the civil revision petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the civil revision petition filed by the petitioners is devoid of merits. It is seen that M.C.O.P. No. 724 of 2006, had been filed by the parents of the deceased, Ganesan, and the petitioners in the Civil Revision Petition have also been made as parties to the petition, as the third and the fourth respondents. This Court is not inclined to grant the reliefs, as prayed for by the petitioners in the present civil revision petition, at this stage. However, it is made clear that it would be open to the petitioners to raise the issue regarding the maintainability of the Motor Accidents Claims Original Petition, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge, Tiruppur), in the manner known to law, and it is for the said Tribunal to adjudicate the said issue, as and when it arises for its consideration, on merits and in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2010 Same Parties Gowri And; Vivedha vs irulandi,; Othchammal,; Ramamoorthy And... Same Subject Motor Vehicles Same Judge M. Jaichandren, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8A, 9 and 10; ;Motor Ve...

Motor Vehicles