Madras High Court
CRP/4642/2025 of K.Arumugam (died), 1. Rangammal Vs K. Dasarah on 1 September 2026
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-09-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
K.Arumugam (died),
1. Rangammal,
W/o. Aumugam, D.No. 95, Harijan Colony,
Minnakattupalayam, Anjanur Village,
Gobichettipalayam Tk, Erode Dist.
2. Maheswari
D/o.Arumugam, D.No. 95, Harijan Colony,
Minnakattupalayam, Anjanur Village,
Gobichettipalayam Tk, Erode Dist.
(Cause title accepted vide order dated
22.09.2025 made in CMP No.22882 of 2025
in CRP Sr No.143100 of 2025)
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. K. Dasarah
S/o.Kannupayyan, res.at Mittahalli, Krishnagiri Dist, now res.at Jagathguru Spinning Mill, Vellakovil, Tiruppur Dist.
2. P. Manish Momaya
206 Nandhini Apartment, Thirumoorthi Lay out, R.S.Puram, Coimbatore Dist.
3. The Branch Manager
Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Compnay Ltd, Coimbatore Town.
4. Jayaraj
S/o.Sambath, Periyakattuthottam,
Minnakattupalayam, Nambiyur, Erode Dist
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
5. The Branch Manager
Iffco Tokyo Insurance Company Ltd,
Gobichettipalayam, Erode Dist.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC to set aside the fair and Final order dated 13.06.2025 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2021 in MCOP
No. 847 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. J.Titus Enock
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.V.Sivaraj and
Mr. S.Arunkumar for R3
Mr.Arunkumar for R5
No appearance for R2 and R4
R1- not ready
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 to set aside the fair and Final order dated 13.06.2025 passed in I.A No. 1 of 2021 in MCOP No. 847 of 2010 by the Sub Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.
2. Heard Mr.J.Titus Enock, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.V.Sivaraj, learned counsel the 3rd respondent and Mr.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent.
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners states that MCOP 847 of 2010 was filed before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of the son of the 1st petitioner, by name Harichandran, caused by accident. However, the said claim petition was dismissed for default on 26.02.2016. The petitioners sought to restore the claim petition by filing an application along with an application to condone the delay of 1681 days in I.A.No.1 of 2021. It is the case of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, in the interregnum period, the 1st petitioner in the claim petition/ father of the deceased, namely Ravichandran also died on 19.02.2020, unfortunately in a separate road accident, leaving behind only female family members and nobody to support them. He would therefore, state that the Tribunal should have considered the condone delay application favourably and taken a lenient view by condoning the delay.
4. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent fairly states that the statutory compensation that would be payable to the claimants, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Harichandran cannot be ordinarily denied however, for the default committed by the petitioners, the respondent /insurance company should not be saddled with interest for the delayed period. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, on instructions, states that the 3rd respondent/ Insurance Company has no serious objection for the delay being condoned and the MCOP to be
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
restored to file and thereafter disposed of expeditiously.
5. In view of the above, this court is inclined to allow the civil revision petition and to restore the claim petition in MCOP No.847 of 2010 to file.
6. At this juncture, Mr.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the 5th respondent/Insurance Company states that the 5th respondent was initially set exparte before the Tribunal. However, since claim petition is restored to file, an opportunity may be given to the 5th respondent also to contest the OP, if so advised.
7. In the light of the above, this court is inclined to dispose of the civil revision petition in the following manner:-
i) The order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.1 of 2021 in MCOP No.847 of 2010, dated 13.06.2025 is set aside and the same allowed.
ii) Consequently the order passed in MCOP No.847 of 2010, dated 26.02.2016, dismissing the claim petition for default, is set aside and the MCOP No.847 of 2010 is restored to file.
iii) It is made clear that ultimately, in the event of the petitioners succeeding and becoming entitled to any compensation, the Tribunal shall exclude the interest for the periiod from 01.03.2016 to 31.10.2020.
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
iv) The Tribunal shall dispose of the OP on merits and in accordance with law on or before 31.01.2027.
v) It is open to the 5th respondent to file counter and contest the claim petition and the earlier exparte order passed against the 5th respondent shall not put against it and the 5th respondent shall be allowed to participate in the Trial. There shall be no order as to costs. 01-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MST To. The Sub Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District
CRP No. 4642 of 2025
P.B.BALAJI, J. MST CRP No. 4642 of 2025 01-09-2026