STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. KARUPPA NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is very unfortunate that the Tribunal has not taken note of the correct facts in this case. There is no dispute that one Angammal died on account of accident on 19.2.1983. One Thoorammal filed O.P. No. 315 of 1983 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurai (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) for awarding a compensation claiming to represent herself as guardian for two minors by name Balakrishnan and Gayathri. The case of the petitioners in that petition was that Thoorammal was the mother of the deceased and Balakrishnan and Gayathri were the minor children of the deceased. A compensation of Rs. 30,000/ - was claimed. The Claims Tribunal after recording evidence passed an award on 24.7.1984 for a sum of Rs. 18,000/ - and directed the minors' share to be kept in fixed deposit in the State Bank of India, East Veli Street, Madurai. The Tribunal permitted the first petitioner therein, namely, Thoorammal to withdraw her share of the compensation.

(2.) EVEN when that petition was pending, the respondents herein filed a petition for an award of compensation in the court of the District Judge, Madurai. The first respondent claimed to be father of 2nd and 3rd respondents who are minors. They filed the petition against the Union of India, represented by Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, and one Thangaraju, who was the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. That petition was transferred to the Subordinate. Judge, Madurai, and numbered as M.A.C.O.P. No. 359 of 1983. Notice to the second respondent was served, but notice to the first respondent had been returned. On 11.2.1983 an endorsement was made by the petitioners' counsel that the first respondent may be exonerated. Accordingly, the court passed the following orders:

(3.) IN spite of the said counter affidavit the respondents herein did not take any steps thereafter to implead the said Thoorammal as a party thereto or take any proceedings against the said Thoorammal for recovery of the award amount from her. Instead the respondents continued the present proceedings on the basis that Thoorammal was not entitled to represent the minors.