1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.02.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (MD)(NPD)Nos.78 and 79 of 2011 and MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2 of 2011 1.Arokia Mary Thilakam 2.Minor Abishek Suriya 3.Minor Abinesh Ranjith (Minor 2 and 3 petitioners are represented by their mother and guardian viz., first petitioner) .. Petitioners/Petitioners in both C.R.Ps. Vs. 1.Rathinam .. First Respondent/Petitioner/6th Respondent in C.R.P(MD)No.78 of 2011 2.Jeevarathinam .. First Respondent/Petitioner/7th Respondent in C.R.P(MD)No.79 of 2011 3.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Marthandam, Marthandam Post, Kanyakumari District. (R2 – Given up in .. Second Respondent/Respondent/ both C.R.Ps.) 3rd Respondent in both C.R.Ps. Civil Revision Petitions have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal orders dated 06.12.2010 passed in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Godwin in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent No.1 : Mr.G.Ramanathan in both C.R.Ps. For Respondent No.2 : Given up https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 COMMON ORDER These Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred against the orders passed in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. 2. It is stated in the revision petitions that the revision petitioners as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Court below, wherein an executable award has been passed. Against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003, the parents of the deceased, who have been arrayed as first respondent herein, have filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.577 of 2007 on the file of this Court, wherein Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded in favour of the first respondent herein in both the revision petitions and accordingly they filed the petitions in question in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003 so as to get cheques in their names. The Court below has allowed the same. Against the orders passed by the Court below, these Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners has contended that the first respondent herein in both the revision petitions are the parents of the deceased and they are not entitled to get any compensation, but in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.577 of 2007 erroneously it has been directed to give Rs.1,00,000/- each to the first respondent in both the petitions and against the orders passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.577 of 2007, Special Leave Petition has been preferred on the file of the Hon'ble Apex Court and under the said circumstances the petitions filed in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 are not legally maintainable, but the Court below without considering the above factual aspects has erroneously allowed Execution Application No.217 and 218 of 2010 and therefore the orders passed by the Court below are liable to be interfered with. 4. As stated earlier, the revision petitioners as petitioners have filed M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Court below, wherein the first respondent in both the petitions have been shown as respondents 6 and 7. In Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.577 of 2007, this Court has directed to give Rs.1,00,000/- each to the respondents 6 and 7 and accordingly the petitions in question have been filed in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 and the same are nothing, but cheque applications. Since Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 are nothing, but cheque applications and the same have been filed in accordance with the order passed in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.577 of 2007, the Court below has rightly allowed the same. Simply because Special Leave Petition is pending on the file of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Court cannot reject the claims made in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 and therefore viewing from any angle the contention urged on the side of the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 petitioners cannot be accepted and altogether these Civil Revision Petitions deserve to be dismissed. 5. In fine, these Civil Revision Petitions deserve dismissal and accordingly are dismissed without costs and the orders passed in Execution Application Nos.217 and 218 of 2010 in M.C.O.P.No.68 of 2003 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil are confirmed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (P&A) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To The Chief Judicial Magistrate Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. +1cc to Mr.G.Ramanathan, Advocate Sr.No.9418 +1cc to Mr.C.Godwin, Advocate Sr.No.9519 smn ssk/14.03.2011 /4c-3p/- COMMON ORDER PASSED IN C.R.P(NPD)(MD)Nos.78 and 79 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.2 of 2011 22.02.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/