MANIMEKALAI Vs. CHINNAPONNU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the Order passed in I.A.No.686 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 was filed by one Ramasamy for compensation, for the injury, he had sustained in the accident claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. In M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999, an award was passed on 11.5.2004 for a sum of Rs.3,05,671/-. After passing of the award, the said Ramasamy died on 28.12.2004. I.A.No.1275 of 2005 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy i.e., wife and children for impleading them as Legal Representatives of the deceased Ramasamy in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999 and to array the mother of the deceased Ramasamy/revision petitioner herein as 8th respondent in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999.

(2.) THE first respondent herein had filed I.A.No.686 of 2007 claiming a sum of Rs.1,13,607 towards her share as Legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy, out of the total deposit amount of Rs.4,54,428/-, while impleading the wife and children of the deceased Ramasamy as respondents in I.A.No.686 of 2007. THE said application was resisted by the other legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy contending that the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007/the mother of the deceased Ramasamy is not entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,13,607/- as that of one of the legal representatives of the deceased Ramasamy. But as a dependent, she is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,500/-(Rs.15,000 + Rs.7,500/-)only.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that the mother/the petitioner in I.A.No.686 of 2007 had filed I.A.No.36 of 2007 for the same relief which was dismissed for non prosecution and that I.A.No.686 of 2007 is hit by the principles of res judicata. But the said contention was not raised before the Court below in his counter to I.A.NO.686 of 2007. Under such circumstances, in this revision, we cannot go into the question as to whether I.A.No.686 of 2007 is barred under the principle of res judicata or not" Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate) Salem in I.A.No.686 of 2007 in M.C.O.P.No.377 of 1999.