CRP/6566/2026 of N.Rajendran Vs M.Pushparani on 14 October 2026

Order

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order passed in MP No.7 of 2026 in MCOP No.634 of 2016 on the file of II Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai, wherein the application filed by the petitioners /respondents 3 and 4 for reopening the evidence and to recall PW1 for further cross examination, came to be rejected by the Court below.

2. Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.

3. The 1st respondent herein is the petitioner, who filed the claim petition in MCOP No.634 of 2016 on the ground that she is the wife of the deceased Manikandan. The petitioners are the parents of the said Manikandan. According to the petitioners, there was no valid marriage between the deceased and the claimant and therefore, she is not entitled to claim for any compensation in this case and it t is only the petitioners / parents, who will be entitled to claim for the compensation on account of the demise of their son in a road accident.

4. The claimant was subjected to cross examination on the side of the petitioners and ultimately, the case reached the final hearing stage. At that stage, the present application came to be filed to recall PW1 for further cross examination in order to establish that the marriage did not takes place as per the Hindu Rites and Customs.

5. The Court below dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed before this Court.

6. It is seen from records that the petitioners have rightthrough contested that the claimant is not the wife of late Manikandan and there was no valid marriage between them. When the claimant was cross examined as PW1, questions have also been put to her in this regard. The petitioners wanted to recall PW1 only on the ground that the marriage had not taken place in accordance with Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

7. In the considered view of this Court, the nature of proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is summary in nature. By no stretch, a Tribunal can effectively decide the marital status of the party. If according to the petitioners, there was no valid marriage between the claimant and the deceased, they should seek for an independent relief before the appropriate forum for a declaration to declare that the claimant is not the wife of late Manikandan. That exercise cannot be done before the Tribunal.

N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA

8. The Tribunal has rightly held that the present application cannot be considered since it goes beyond the scope of enquiry in a motor accident case. Inspite of the same, the Tribunal has held that the dismissal of the application does not mean that the marital status of the claimant has been recognised. The Tribunal has further held that even to recognise live-in relationship, it requires appreciation of evidence and that the dismissal of the application does not result in an automatic assumption that the claimant has passed the said test.

9. The order passed by the Tribunal is a well reasoned order, which does not require the interference of this Court and accordingly, the same is sustained. As stated supra, it is left open to the petitioners to agitate the issue before the Tribunal or if so advised, seek for a declaration before the concerned Court regarding the status of the 1st respondent /claimant.

10. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No RKA To The II Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai

AND CMP NO. 28300 OF 2026