Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4254 (MAD)

Marimuthu v. A. Velliyankiri

2011-10-13

R.SUDHAKAR

body2011
JUDGMENT :- 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the return endorsement made in memo on 29.08.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.825 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional Sub Court), Erode. 2. Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr.N.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 3. In view of the order that is to be passed in this Revision Petition, notice to the respondents 1, 2 and 4 is dispensed with. 4. The revision petitioner is the injured claimant in M.C.O.P.No.825 of 2002 on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Erode. The said MCOP came to be decreed in a sum of Rs.2,06,000/-. It appears that the owner and the driver of the vehicle, viz., the respondents 1 and 2 herein have settled the claim of the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has deposited the claim amount into the court below to avoid execution proceedings. Since the petitioner had received the entire compensation amount from the respondents 1 and 2, he filed a memo on 24.8.2011 which came to be returned on 29.8.2011 only on the ground that connected petitions have been returned. In the memo, the revision petitioner/claimant clearly stated that the third respondent can withdraw the amount deposited before the Court as the respondents 1 and 2 herein settled the petitioner's claim as per the terms of the decree passed in the Motor Accident Claims Original Petition. Challenging the return endorsement as above, the revision petition has been filed. 5. The endorsement returning the memo filed by the petitioner appears to be totally without application of mind and does not further the cause of justice. The Court below having taken a note of the memo filed by the revision petitioner ought to have accepted the same and allowed the repayment of amount to the third respondent insurance company. Since the amount due and payable to the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 as per the memo filed, signed by the counsel for the claimant, the endorsement is cryptic and also shows non application of mind. 6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the court below is directed to take up the memo dated 24.8.2011 and pass orders in terms of the memo within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.