Madras High Court
S.Ananthanperumal vs A.Kingston on 4 April, 2018
Author: M.Duraiswamy
Bench: M.Duraiswamy
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.04.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
C.M.A(MD)No.174 of 2008
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010
S.Ananthanperumal ... Appellant / Respondent No.1
Vs.
1.A.Kingston ... Respondent/Petitioner
2.The New India Assurance Co., Limited
represented by its Branch Manager,
Nagercoil, Nagercoil Village,
Agasteeswaram Taluk,
Kanyakumari District. ... Respondent No.2/Respondent No.2
PRAYER:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and decree passed by I Additional
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / I Additional Subordinate Judge of
Nagercoil, dated 25.06.2007, in M.A.C.O.P.No.37 of 2006.
!For Appellant :Mr.D.Balasubramanian
^For Respondents :Mr.N.Subramanian
for R.1
:Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
for R.2
:JUDGMENT
Challenging the award passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.37 of 2006, on the file of I Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, the owner of the vehicle has filed the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.
2. At the outset, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents raised an objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal for the reason that the appellant has not deposited the mandatory pre-deposit amount of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to maintain the appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in support of his contention relied upon a Full Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in Pareeth Vs. Janaiya @ Karuppuswamy and others reported in 2014(6) CTC 465, wherein the Full Bench of Kerala High Court held as follows:
?37. We also notice that when Bill No.60 of 1988 was placed before the Parliament on 13.05.1988 introducing Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the statement of objects and reasons have been provided therein along with Notes on clauses to explain the provisions in the Bill. The same has been published as per the Gazette of India. Extraordinary, Part II, Section 2 (No.30 New Delhi May 13, 1988). As against Clause 173, the following explanation has been given:
? Clause 173 makes provision for Appeal to High Court by the persons aggrieved against the Orders of Claims Tribunal and where the person aggrieved is the person, who has to pay the Compensation such person shall deposit twenty five thousand rupees or 50 percent of the amount awarded whichever is less?.
The same is also worthy to be noticed.
38. We answer the reference holding that Abdul Rahiman V. Rajan, 2004(2) TN MAC 572 (Ker.) : 2004(2) KLT 1113, has not been correctly decided and accordingly it is overruled and we uphold the view taken as far as the legal issue raised herein, in the decision reported in Sridharan V. Prasad, 2011(2) KHC 777. The Appeals are sent back for consideration by the appropriate Bench.?
4. Since the mandatory requirement of pre-deposit has not been complied with by the appellant, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be rejected. Following the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of Keral High Court, I am of the considered view that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
5. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
To
1. I Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / I Additional Subordinate Judge of Nagercoil.
2.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.