Madras High Court
CRP/5727/2026 of TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Minor Srinithi on 28 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 5727 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011892402026}
CRP NO. 5696 OF 2026, CRP NO. 5677 OF 2026, CRP NO. 5678 OF 2026
& CRP NO. 5732 OF 2026,
CRP.No.5727 of 2026
M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd
Rep. by its Manager,
Office at 2nd Floor, Samson Towers,
403/L Pantheon Road,
Chennai 600 008.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Minor Srinithi
D/o.Chinnappa,
Rep. by her Next Friend Mother Dhanalakshmi, No.5/706 EnuSonai, Periyathyagarasanapalli Village, Hosur Tk., Krishnagiri Dist.
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 5696 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011892382026}
M/s TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd
Rep.by its Manager,
Having its Officer at 2nd Floor,
Samson Towers,
No.403/L,
Pantheon Road,
Chennai- 600 008.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Minor Prithviraj
S/o Somasekar,
Rep.by his Next Friend Mother Hemavathi, No.2/241 Doddur Village, Marandapalli post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 5677 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011892372026}
M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd
Rep. by its Manager,
Having its Office at 2nd Floor, Samson Towers, 403/L, Pantheon Road, Chennai 600 008
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Minor Ranjith
S/o.Mahesh,
Rep by his Next Friend Mother Swarnam,
No.2/240, Doddur Village,
Marandapalli Post, Hosur TK,
Krishnagiri District
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 5678 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011892412026}
M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd
Rep. by its Manager,
Having its Office at 2nd Floor,
Samson Towes,
No.403/L,
Pantheon Road,
Chennai 600 008.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
S.Hemavathi
W/o.Somasekar,
No.2/241, Doddur Village,
Marandapalli Post, Hosur TK,
Krishnagiri District
..Respondent(s)
CRP No. 5732 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011892392026}
M/s.TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd
Rep. by its Manager,
Having its Office at 2nd Floor, Samson Towers, 403/L, Pantheon Road, Chennai 600 008
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Minor Kishore
S/o.Mahesh,
Rep by his Next Friend Mother Sornam,
No.2/240, Doddur Village,
Marandapalli Post, Hosur TK,
Krishnagiri District
..Respondent(s)
To set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 made in IA No.1 of 2019 in MCOP No.152 of 2019 on the file of the MACT, Additional Sub Court, Hosur and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
CRP No. 5696 of 2026
To set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019
in MCOP.No.154 of 2019 on the file of the MACT, Addiitonal Sub Court, Hosur, and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
CRP No. 5677 of 2026
To set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 made in IA No.1 of 2019 in MCOP No.161 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
CRP No. 5678 of 2026
To set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 made in IA No.1 of 2019 in MCOP No.148 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur and allow this Civil Revision Petition.
CRP No. 5732 of 2026
To set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 made in I.A.No.1 of 2019
in MCOP.No.153 of 2019, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Hosur.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Vijayaraghavan N.
For Respondent(s):
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.
COMMON ORDER
The Insurance Company is the revision petitioner, having filed these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Lok Adalat Awards, on the ground that the medical records produced before the Tribunal and Adalat are all forged and fabricated, which came to light only subsequently.
2. In fact, Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel brings to my notice that though the Insurance Company, in pursuance to the award has deposited the entire money, applications were filed in all the OPs seeking to recall the Lok Adalat awards on the ground of fraud. Learned counsel also brings to my notice, the fact that the counsel for the claimants had endorsed no objection for the applications being allowed and the awards being recalled. Despite no objection expressed by the counsel for the claimants, the Tribunal dismissed all the applications on the ground that the applications are not maintainable before the Tribunal, but can be filed only before this Court, invoking either Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
3. Mr.Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would also brings to my notice, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and others reported in 2000 (2) SCALE 343, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC, the Insurance Company can approach the Court for annulling the awards when fraud is alleged by the claimants. He also pointed out to the facts of the present cases which are similar to the fact of the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and others.
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the counsel for claimants had also expressed no objection for the Lok Adalat awards being recalled even before the Tribunal, I am inclined to entertain the revisions, while also dispensing with notice to the respondents.
5. The Tribunal ought to have entertained the applications, especially, in the light of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and others and ought not to have applied the general ratio that a Lok Adalat award cannot be sought to be set aside before the Court which passed the award, but it is only the High Court which could step in exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. This is a case where fraud is alleged. Therefore, the Tribunal does have power to recall its award as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as indicated above in the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh and others. The Tribunal itself should have allowed the applications, that too, when the claimants expressed no objection for the awards to be recalled.
7. In the light of the above, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. It is needless to state that as a consequence of the Lok Adalat awards being recalled, the Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw the amounts that have been deposited pursuant to the Lok Adalat awards. No costs. 28-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No vsi
P.B.BALAJI J. vsi CRP No. 5727, 5696, 5677, 5678 & 5732 of 2026 28-09-2026