Madras High Court
CRP/6030/2026 of K. Prakash (minor) Vs The Assistant Director on 5 October 2026
CRP No. 6030 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR
CRP No. 6030 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA010172272026}
K. Prakash (minor)
Rep. by his Father and Natural Guardian
R. Kubendran,
Plot No.27, V.Block,
Vengatapuram,Chennai - 600015.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Director
M.T.C. (Metropolitan Transport Corporation), Chennai – 600017.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the Order dated 31.07.2025 passed in M.P.No. 1 of 2025 in MCOP No. 2353 of 2003 by the V Small Causes Court, MACT, at Chennai 104.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms. J.Mary Bhavani
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to condone the delay of 5496 days in filing the petition to restore the claim petition, which was dismissed for default.
CRP No. 6030 of 2026
2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner (minor), represented by his father has filed a claim petition in MCOP No.2353 of 2003 seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The claim petition was dismissed for default on 01.08.2007 for non appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner has filed a petition to restore the OP along with a petition to condone the delay of 5496 days in filing the restoration petition. The condone delay petition was filed only on 16.04.2025 and the same was dismissed by the Claims Tribunal. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner has come before this court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the claim petition was filed by the petitioner, he was minor and represented by his father/ guardian, and the claim of the minor petitioner has not been properly adjudicated by the Claim Tribunal. Hence, according to him, an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to restore the claim petition and to adjudicate the same on merits.
4. In the affidavit filed in support of the present condone delay petition, it was asserted by the petitioner’s father, who filed the affidavit on behalf of the petitioner that he engaged an advocate to conduct the case and inspite of several requests, the status of the case has not been informed to him by the counsel. Latter, he acquired knowledge about the dismissal of the claim petition for non
CRP No. 6030 of 2026 prosecution and only due to failure of the advocate to follow up the case and to inform the petitioner promptly, the delay had occurred.
5. It is seen from the typed set of papers that originally, the claim petition was filed in the year 2003. As per the affidavit filed by the petitioner, the main OP was dismissed for non prosecution on 01.08.2007 and the present application has been filed on 16.04.2025. The reason given by the petitioner to explain the delay of 5496 days, i.e., more than 18 years is not acceptable. As a litigant, the petitioner is expected to contact his counsel and to follow up the progress of the case. The petitioner kept quite for more than 18 years and then filed the application with a vague allegation against the counsel. Further, in the typed set of papers, the order passed by the Claims Tribunal, dismissing the OP has been produced. A perusal of the same would indicate that the order of dismissal for default was passed on 12.01.2010. However, in the affidavit it was stated that the claim petition was dismissed for default on 01.08.2007. There is a discrepancy with regard to the date of dismissal of OP.
6. As seen from the claim petition, the petitioner was aged 12 years on the date of filing of the claim petition in the year 2003. Therefore, the petitioner would have attained majority in the year 2009. However, the petitioner has not taken any steps to declare that he attained majority for nearly 18 years. Even now, the petitioner has not filed the affidavit on his own, but the affidavit has
CRP No. 6030 of 2026 been sworn only by his father. The petitioner has not taken any steps to declare himself as major to prosecute the case on his own name and the present application has been filed by the minor represented by his father. Taking into consideration all these factors, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner as he failed to explain the inordinate delay of 5496 days . I do not find any error in the impugned order.
7. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 05-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To The V Judge, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai-104.
CRP No. 6030 of 2026 S.SOUNTHAR, J. MST CRP No. 6030 of 2026 05-10-2026