1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 18.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN C.M.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2011 Murugan @ Balamurugan ..Appellant/Petitioner -Vs- 1.A.Senthilkumar 2.The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, K.R.T.Building, 33, Promenade Road, Contonement, Trichy. .. Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the order and decretal order dated 16.12.2008 and made in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge) Aruppukottai. For Appellant : Mr.M.Jothi Basu for Mr.G.Marimuthu For R-2 : Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian For R-1 : Remained Exparte in the Tribunal J U D G M E N T Challenging the order of dismissal of claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.17 of 2004 and 16.12.2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court), Aruppukkottai, the claimant has preferred this appeal. The owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer are the respondents 1 and 2 herein. 2.Heard Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the claimant, and Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian learned Counsel on record for 2nd respondent. The first respondent being the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal and hence, Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned counsel for the appellant has filed a memorandum to that effect to dispense with the notice to the first respondent. Memorandum is recorded. 3.It appears from the records, that on 23.11.2003 at about 00.30 hours, the claimant met with an accident, while he was returning from the Koppammal Spinning Mill, Chempatti-Puliyooran https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Road, in front of the Soundrapandian Tea Stall, involving the lorry bearing registration No. TN-57-A-4561 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Hence, he filed a claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4.On evaluating the evidence adduced on behalf of both sides, the claim petition was dismissed on the ground that the original owner Ramar has not been impleaded, as a party to the claim proceedings. 5.When the appeal came up for admission Mr.M.Jothi Basu, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order of dismissal be set aside and the claim petition be remitted back to the Tribunal, so as to enable the claimant to implead the original owner of the lorry, namely, Ramar. 6.Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent has also not raised any objection and he has conceded for the remission of the claim petition to the Tribunal. 7.Having taken into consideration of the order passed by the Tribunal and the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the both sides, this Court is inclined to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2008, and made in MCOP No.17 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court), Aruppukkottai, so as to enable the appellant/claimant to implead the original owner of the lorry. 8.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of dismissal dated 16.12.2008 and made in MCOP No.17 of 2004, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub-Court) Aruppukkottai is set aside and the petition in MCOP No.17 of 2004 is remitted back to the Tribunal. 9.The learned Claims Tribunal is directed to issue notice to the parties concerned and after giving adequate opportunities to adduce their respective evidences, the learned Tribunal shall dispose the claim petition within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without any further loss of time, as the claim petition is related to the year 2004. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Records) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai. +1cc to Mr.G.Marimuthu, Advocate Sr.No.40508 +1cc to Mr.A.K.Baskarapandian, Advocate Sr.No.40561 skn ssk/10.01.2012 /4c – 2p/- C.M.A.(MD)No.1276 of 2011 18.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/