CMA No. 3356 of 2019 __________ Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH CMA No. 3356 of 2019 Amaravathi W/o. Late Raja, Samalpatti Village, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ..Appellant(s) Vs 1. The Managing Director Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kancheepuram. 2. Tmt.Bharathi W/o. Late Raju, 3. Murugan S/o. Late Raju, 3 & 4 residing at Ambedkar Nagar, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. Mariappan (Died). 4. Lakshmi W/o. Late Mariappan 5. Minor Sakthivel S/o. Late Mariappan 6. Minor Vetrivel S/o. Late Mariappan, (minor respondents 5 & 6 are represent by mother and Natural guardian, Lakshmi, 4th respondent) Respondents 4 to 6 are residing at Ambedkar Nagar, Uthangarai Taluk, Krishnagiri District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 3356 of 2019 __________ Page2 of 6 7. The Thasildar, Uthangarai 8. The District Collector, Krishnagiri District. ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order passed in MCOP No.215 of 2013 dated 28.03.2018, on the file of the Special Sub Judge, MACT, Krishnagiri. For Appellant(s): Ms. R.Durga Devi For M/s. S.C.Vishwanath For Respondent(s): Mr. C.R.Sureshkumar For R1 Mr.K.Thiruvengadam for R2 & R3 R4 - Dismissed Vide Court Order Dated 13/02/2023 Rr5 And 6 - Minors Rep By R4 R-7 – Signed – No appearance R-8 – Mr. B. Karthikeyan, Government Advocate JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in M.C.O.P.No.215 of 2013, dated 28.03.2018, wherein the claim petition filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by giving liberty to the claimant to initiate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 3356 of 2019 __________ Page3 of 6 separate proceedings to recover her share in the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal and which was received in toto by respondents 2 to 4. 2. This Court heard Ms. R.Durga Devi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant and Mr. C.R.Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Mr.K.Thiruvengadam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents and Mr. B. Karthikeyan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the eighth respondent. 3. The appellant filed the claim petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the death of her husband Raja in a road accident that took place on 04.10.2005. 4. The petitioner claims to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased Raja. However, respondents 2 to 4 had already filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.719 of 2006 before the concerned Court seeking for payment of compensation for the very same accident, and an award came to be passed by awarding compensation of a sum of Rs.2,71,000/-. The said amount was also paid to respondents 2 to 4 by the Transport Corporation. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 3356 of 2019 __________ Page4 of 6 5. The grievance of the of the appellant is that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Raja and the respondents have produced concocted documents and managed to collect the compensation amount. Hence, the same warranted the filing of a second claim petition by the appellant. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to the conclusion that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Raja and that the respondents 2 to 4 had already filed a claim petition and the compensation amount had been determined and it was also paid by the Transport Corporation. In view of the same, the second claim petition for the very same accident is not maintainable. Accordingly, liberty was granted to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover her share of the compensation from the compensation amount that has already been received by respondents 2 to 4. 7. The above finding rendered by the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting the interference by this Court. The Tribunal was perfectly right in holding that the second claim petition cannot be entertainable for the very same accident. Accordingly, this Court confirms the award passed by the Tribunal and reconfirms the liberty granted to the appellant to initiate appropriate proceedings to recover her share from the compensation that has already been received by respondents 2 to 4. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 3356 of 2019 __________ Page5 of 6 8. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. 21-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SSI To: 1. The Special Subordinate Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Krishnagiri. 2. The Thasildar Uthangarai 3. The District Collector Krishnagiri District. 4. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CMA No. 3356 of 2019 __________ Page6 of 6 N.ANAND VENKATESH J. SSI CMA No. 3356 of 2019 21-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis