Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S. SIVAGAMI versus PERIASAMY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S. Sivagami v. Periasamy - CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) No.200 of 2003 [2003] RD-TN 115 (17 February 2003)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS



DATED: 17/02/2003

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM

CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) No.200 of 2003

and

C.M.P.No.1502 of 2003

S. Sivagami ... Petitioner -Vs-

1. Periasamy

2. The Original Insurance Company,

Kovai Road, Karur. ... Respondents Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 03.10.2002 made in I.A.No.36 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 1997 on the file of the Subordinate Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Karur.

For Petitioner : Mr. P. Valliappan

For Respondents : --

:ORDER



Aggrieved by the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karur, dated 03.10.2002 made in I.A.No.36 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 19 97 amending the main M.C.O.P. petition as stated in the said application, the petitioner, owner of the vehicle in question, has preferred the above revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. It is seen that the first respondent herein- claimant has filed I.A.No.36 of 2002 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 1997 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to amend the main M.C.O.P. petition with regard to the medical expenses. It is further seen that the first respondent originally claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,0 00/- as compensation and subsequently, filed an application to enhance the amount of compensation. When the said application was allowed by the Tribunal, it is stated that while carrying out the amendment, the first respondent herein inadvertently failed to amend the compensation amount claimed for the medical treatment, which necessitated him to file the present application. The application was objected to by the petitioner herein on the sole reason that there was delay in carrying out the amendment and the same cannot be permitted at this stage. The Tribunal, after observing that even if the application is allowed, it is for the applicant therein to prove that he is entitled for compensation for the amount proposed to be corrected, allowed the said application.

3. As rightly observed by the Court below, even after allowing the said application, it is for the applicant therein (the first respondent herein) to substantiate and prove his claim. In such circumstances, I do not find any error of law or jurisdiction for interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, C.M.P.No.1502 of 2003 is also dismissed.

Index:Yes

Internet:Yes

To

The Sub Court (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal), Karur. sml.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.