Madras High Court
K.Balaji vs Selvi on 7 August, 2025
CRP.No.2952 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 07.08.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP.No.2952 of 2025
and
CMP.No.16658 of 2025
K.Balaji ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. Selvi
2. Nandhini
3. Minor Praveenraj
Rep. by his Mother Selvi
as Natural Guardian and next friend
4. Dhanalakshmi
5. Arjunan
6. M/s. Kone Elevator India Pvt. Ltd.,
No.50, Vanagaram Road, Ayanambakkam,
Chennai-95.
Present registered address at:
Plot No.A28, SIPCOT Industrial Park,
Pillaipakkam, Sriperumbudur Taluk,
Kancheepuram District – 602 105.
7. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.134, Greams Road, 4th Floor,
Anna Salai, Chennai – 06. ...Respondents
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm )
CRP.No.2952 of 2025
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India, to set aside the order dated 12.06.2025 made in MP.No.16 of
2025 in MCOP.No.6560 of 2018 on the file of the Chief Judge, Small
Causes Court, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.G.Ramesh Cumar
For Respondents : Mrs.M.Malar, for R1 to R3
: Mr.D.Bhaskaran, for R7
: Notice not ready, for R4 to R6
ORDER
The revision petitioner herein is the 3rd respondent in MCOP.No.6560 of 2018 pending on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chennai, who had taken out an interlocutory application in MP.No.16 of 2025 to reopen his side of evidence in order to lead oral and documentary evidence. The said application was opposed and the tribunal had subsequently dismissed the same, vide order dated 12.06.2025, finding that the petitioner earlier filed MP.No.14 of 2025 for the very same purpose of reopening the case and despite the same being allowed, the petitioner did not utilise the opportunity given to him and therefore, the present application in MP.No.16 of 2025 filed for the very Page No.2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm ) CRP.No.2952 of 2025 same relief is not maintainable. Challenging the same, the present Revision petition has been filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that, the petitioner is the purchaser of the vehicle from the 6th respondent herein, who is the 1st respondent in the MCOP proceedings and therefore, the petitioner intendeds to lead evidence. He would state that the impleadment of the petitioner in the MCOP proceedings was not opposed and was rightly ordered by the tribunal. Counter statement has been filed by the petitioner along with certain documents and only to establish the contentions of the revision petitioner, the petitioner has sought for an opportunity to reopen the evidence and permit him to adduce oral and documentary evidence.
3. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel appearing for the 7th respondent/insurance company submits that, in terms of Section 2(30) r/w. 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the registered owner being the 6th respondent, the petitioner has no say in the present MCOP proceedings, Page No.3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm ) CRP.No.2952 of 2025 even though he may have been impleaded as one of the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that the parties have already gone for trial and it is already established that there is a breach of policy conditions and therefore, eventually, the insurer may also be held to be not liable and it is a matter to be resolved between the registered vehicle owner and the claimants, unless otherwise directed by the tribunal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and I have also gone through the materials placed before me.
5. In the event of tribunal holding that the 6th respondent is liable to compensate the respondents 1 to 5/claimants, then as the insurer of the 6th respondent in respect of the subject motor vehicle, the insurance company may consequently become liable to indemnify the 6th respondent, in view of the insurance cover taken by the 6th respondent.
6. Further, in CMA.(MD).No.395 of 2021, by judgment dated 11.12.2023, I had an occasion to deal with a similar issue of purchaser Page No.4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm ) CRP.No.2952 of 2025 who cannot become the registered owner under the Motor Vehicles Act, while sitting along with Hon'ble Mr.Justice Teekaa Raman, former Judge of this Court.
7. Referring to Section 2(30) and 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Naveen Kumar Vs.Vijay Kumar reported in 2018-2-CTC-91 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Uthra in CMA.Nos.261 & 1067 of 2015 dated 16.03.2017, we found that, when the registered owner has transferred the vehicle, but his name continues to be reflected as the owner in the record with the Registering authority, then he cannot be absolved from liability.
8. In such view of the matter, the petitioner/3rd respondent is not going to be prejudiced in any manner, since the liability will be cast upon the 6th respondent and if at all, consequently upon the 7th respondent/the insurer of the 6th respondent.
Page No.5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm ) CRP.No.2952 of 2025
9. In the light of the above, I do not see any serious prejudice being caused to the petitioner/3rd respondent by the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed in MP.No.16 of 2025 in MCOP.No.6560 of 2018 by the Chief Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai.
10. Further, having already filed an application in MP.No.14 of 2025 for an identical prayer and the same being allowed and the adjournment petition filed having been dismissed, specifically stating that the permission granted in MP.No.14 of 2025 has not been utilised and the said order being not challenged by the petitioner, I do not find how the present application in MP.No.16 of 2025 is also maintainable.
11. It is also brought to my notice that the MCOP is of the year 2018 and it is at the stage of arguments and substantial arguments have also been advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants and the insurance company.
Page No.6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm ) CRP.No.2952 of 2025
12. In view of the above, the arguments if any of the petitioner/the 3rd respondent may also be heard and the case in MCOP.No.6560 of 2018 shall be disposed of finally on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after hearing the parties.
13. With the above directions, this Civil revision petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.08.2025
skt
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
To
The Chief Judge,
Small Causes Court at Chennai.
Page No.7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm )
CRP.No.2952 of 2025
P.B. BALAJI, J.
skt
CRP.No.2952 of 2025
and
CMP.No.16658 of 2025
07.08.2025
Page No.8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/08/2025 03:00:13 pm )