Madras High Court
CRP/4461/2024 of RANJITHA Vs A.THIYAGARAJAN on 11 November 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 11-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Civil Revision Petition No.4461 of 2024
and
C.M.P.No.25002 of 2024
CNR: {HCMA012004872024}\
1. Ranjitha
W/o.Late.Murali
2. Thimmakka
W/o.Late.Chellappa
..Petitioners
Vs
1. A.Thiyagarajan
S/o.Arthanari
2. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, No.100/272, Salem Main Road, EC, P.N.Patti, Mettur - 636 402.
..Respondents
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.04.2024 made in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2021 on the file of Special District Judge for Motor Accidents Claims Cases, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioners :
Mr.R.K.Jawahar
*****
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 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2021 by the Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Cases, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, wherein the application filed by the petitioners/claimants to permit them to examine further witness, came to be dismissed by the Tribunal.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and carefully perused the materials available on record. This Court also went through the impugned order.
3. Though the respondents have been served with notice and their names have been printed in the cause list, there is no appearance either in person or through a pleader.
4. The petitioners are the claimants, who filed M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2021 seeking payment of compensation on account of the demise of husband of the first claimant and son of the second claimant. PW-1 to PW-4 were examined on the side of petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners wanted to examine one more eyewitness, who is said to have seen the accident. The Tribunal has dismissed the said application and aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed before this Court.
5. In the considered view of this Court, the examination of another eyewitness on the side of the petitioners will not cause any prejudice to any of the parties since the witness will be subjected to cross-examination and ultimately, the Court has to deal with the evidence of all the witnesses and assess them before coming to a final conclusion. Therefore, examination of one more eyewitness will not in anyway dislodge the evidence already collected and if any improvement is sought to be made, the Tribunal can always deal with the same while appreciating the evidence.
6. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal suffers from perversity warranting interference of this Court.
7. Accordingly, the order dated 12.04.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2023 in M.C.O.P.No.237 of 2021 by the Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Cases, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri, is set aside and this civil revision petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J. gm The Tribunal is directed to dispose of M.C.O.P.Nos.237 of 201 and 1097 of 2022 within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No gm To The Special District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Cases, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. Civil Revision Petition No.4461 of 2024