Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 06.03.2025 CORAM THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR Review Applicaiton (MD) No.1 of 2025 1. Mary Joyhelina Bernado 2. Arul Aglin 3. Abinaya Elizha 4. Minor Arul Sherbal [Minor appellant through his mother and next guardian first appellant herein] ... Petitioners Vs. 1. Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Limited, Through its Managing Director, Office at Ranithottam, Nesamony Nagar, Nagerkoil. 2. Arulantham 3. Benaminal 4. The Branch Manger, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Kanthan Complex, New Bus Stand Opposite, Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District. 5. Joseph 6. Rabi 7. Jino 8. Ravina ... Respondents Prayer : Petitions filed under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC read with section 114 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 of CPC to review the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2023 made in CMA.(MD) No.1 of 2023 on the file of this Court and allow this Review Application. For Petitioners : Mr.C.Sankar Prakash For Respondents : Mr.J.S.Murali – R5 No appearance – R1 O R D E R This Review Application has been filed to review the judgement of this Court passed in C.M.A.(MD) No.1 of 2023, dated 06.04.2023. 2. The review application has been filed mainly on the ground that while directing compensation only the transport Corporation has been directed to deposit 50% of the compensation amount. Whereas, the liability of the insurance company has been omitted to be mentioned in the judgment. The fact remains that the deceased was traveling in Innova car bearing registration No.TN-74- V-8073 on 27.06.2014 which was insured with the fourth respondent insurance company. The car has colluded with the bus bearing registration No.TN-74-N 1366 as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Apart from the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 deceased, yet another person died and three others were injured. There were two MCOPs have been filed in 1504 and 1547 of 2019 on account of death of two persons and two other MCOPs have been filed claiming compensation by the injured persons and the same is pending. However, by a common judgment, dated 27.06.2022, the Tribunal has fixed contributory negligence on both the drivers and fixed a compensation of a sum of Rs.6,24,000/- and the transport Corporation was directed to deposit 50% of the amount. As the insurance company has not been made as a party, the Order was silent about remaining 50% of the compensation. 3. Challenging the quantum, an appeal has been filed before this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.(MD) No.1 of 2023 wherein the insurance company has also been made as a party. This Court after taking note of the entire materials, enhanced the compensation to a sum of Rs.16,16,800/- and the first respondent Corporation alone was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,08,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% interest and with regard to the remaining 50% there was no direction. Therefore, the present review application has been filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company mainly would contend that the insurance company has not been made a party in the main claim 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 petition and therefore, there cannot be any direction. 5. It is relevant to note that admittedly composite negligence has been fixed on both the drivers and the drivers of both the vehicle and owner of the car has been made as a party in the Original Petition. In the appeal, while claiming enhancement of compensation, insurance company has been made as a party. Therefore, mere omission of a direction to the insurance company cannot be taken advantage by the insurance company. As the death has not been disputed and the car has also been insured with the fourth respondent insurance company, this Court is of the view that the insurance company is liable to pay 50% of the compensation, viz., a sum of Rs.8,08,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of Original Petition till the date of deposit. Mere omission of making them as a party will not absolve the insurance company from clearing their liability. They have been made as a party in the appeal. The very common judgment of the trial Court will clearly indicate that the composite negligence has been fixed on both the drivers. Hence, the insurance company cannot take advantage in paying compensation particularly when they have been made as a party in the appeal wherein the compensation has been enhanced. As the omission in the judgment is a clear error apparent on the face of the record, 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 this review application has to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, this Review Application is allowed and the fourth respondent insurance company is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.8,08,400/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the original petition till the date of deposit within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 06.03.2025 vrc 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. vrc Review Application (MD) No.1 of 2025 06.03.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis