Search Judgments

(Motor Accident Claims - Pay and Recovery)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 147(2), 149, 150 (as amended by Motor Vehicles Amendment Act, 2019, effective 01.04.2022). This appeal challenged an award dated 19.08.2025 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Puducherry, in M.C.O.P No.366 of 2023. The MACT had awarded Rs. 2,03,000/- with 7.5% interest to the first respondent, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 03.12.2022 caused by the rash and negligent riding of a two-wheeler.

(Arbitration by Consortium Member)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Sections 11(6), 11(6-A), and 16, concerning the scope of a referral court's power in appointing an arbitrator. APGENCO (appellant) awarded an EPC contract to a Consortium, initially led by M/s Tecpro Systems Ltd. (first respondent). After the first respondent entered liquidation, it unilaterally invoked the arbitration clause (Clause 22.2 of GCC) and sought the constitution of an Arbitral Tribunal (AT) under Section 11(6).

APGENCO and another consortium member objected, arguing that only the Consortium could invoke arbitration, not an individual member, especially given the first respondent's insolvency and alleged lack of authority.

(Motor Accident Compensation)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 and Rules, 1996

The appellant, an insurance company, challenged an award issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in M.C.O.P.No.275 of 2017. The first respondent (claimant) was involved in a motor accident on 13.04.2016, where an Eicher Load Van, insured by the appellant, driven rashly and negligently, collided with his motorcycle. The claimant sustained grievous injuries, undergoing multiple surgeries, and alleged inability to continue his avocation as a driver, seeking Rs. 1,00,00,000/- in compensation.

(Motor Accident Compensation Enhancement)

Motor Vehicles Act, Section 173 - This appeal was filed by the claimants challenging the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in M.A.C.T.O.P. No.473 of 2021, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

The accident occurred on November 6, 2020, when the deceased Balaraman, while riding a motorcycle, was fatally struck by a Maruti Suzuki Car driven negligently. He succumbed to injuries on November 9, 2020.

(Partition of Family Properties and Validity of Wills/Deeds)

Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63(c) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 65, 68, 69, 71 -  This common judgment addresses appeals concerning the partition of family properties, the validity of various testamentary and inter-vivos documents, and the alleged existence of partnership firms. The plaintiff (wife of the deceased eldest son, Masilamani) sought partition of 11 family properties. She contested the validity of Wills, Gift Deeds, and Release Deeds executed by her mother-in-law, Ayyammal, and father-in-law, Periya Maruthachalam, arguing they were obtained fraudulently or were not properly executed. Defendants, Masilamani's siblings, contended the properties were Ayyammal's self-acquired or belonged to family partnership firms.

The Trial Court granted a preliminary decree for 1/7th share to the plaintiff in items 1-9 but dismissed the suit for items 10 and 11, and rendition of accounts.

(Re-conveyance of Acquired Land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 16B - (Land to be forfeited in certain cases)  Section 48B - (Transfer of land to original owner in certain cases.) - This intra-Court appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition seeking the re-conveyance of 96 cents of land in Reddiyur Village, Salem District. The land had been acquired approximately 40 years prior for the establishment of SIDCO.

The appellants contended that the land had not been utilised for its intended public purpose and, therefore, should be returned to them.

The respondent State counsel argued that the land was part of a larger SIDCO acquisition and that no forfeiture order under Section 16B of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, had been issued.

(Motor Accident Compensation Enhancement)

Motor Vehicles Act - This appeal was filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Madurai, in M.C.O.P.No.1255 of 2022 dated 26.02.2025.

The claimant, a 19-year-old, suffered an amputation of his left leg below the knee on 10.03.2022 due to a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The MACT found the offending vehicle solely responsible and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 26,59,000/- for various heads, including permanent disability (70% functional disability), pain and suffering, and medical expenses.

(Motor Accident Compensation - Contributory Negligence)

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal where the State Transport Corporation challenged the compensation granted to the dependents of a deceased passenger.

The case involved Sections 279, 337, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, as a criminal case was registered against the driver. Reference was also made to the Motor Vehicles Act concerning safety standards.

The deceased, Jayaraman, aged 40 and a carpenter earning Rs.30,000/-, died after allegedly being thrown from a moving Corporation bus due to the driver's rash and negligent driving and sudden application of brakes.

(Motor Accident Claim - Compensation Appeal)

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The claimants (husband and children) sought compensation for the death of the deceased, a 54-year-old tailoring teacher. The accident occurred on 21.08.2020 when she was a pillion rider on a two-wheeler that was struck by a car driven negligently. The Tribunal found the car driver responsible and awarded Rs. 56,78,684/- with interest at 7.25% per annum.

(Setting Aside Fraudulent Compromise Decree & Striking Off Plaints)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), specifically Order 23 Rule 3, which governs the compromise of suits. Additionally, Article 227 of the Constitution of India, pertaining to the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, and principles from the Indian Contract Act, 1872, regarding lawful agreements, are relevant.

The revision petitions challenged a judgment and decree issued in O.S. Nos.