Sarathi Kumar vs. Kumar

C.M.A.No.411 of 2018

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.

Today, the matter is listed under the caption "for being mentioned".

2.It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the 4 th and 5 th respondents that since the driver of the vehicle did not have license to drive the vehicle, on deposit of the amount, the 4 th and 5 th respondents should be given liberty to recover the amount from the 2 nd respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, namely, A.K.Mahalingam.

3.In view of that particular fact, the following may be incorporated in the order dated 15.03.2022 in paragraph No.11, and consequential correction may be carried out in paragraph No.4:

"11.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to that extent enhancing the compensation which had been determined as Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,22,000/-. The Insurance Company shall deposit the entire compensation amount i.e.,

Rs.1,22,000/-, less the amount if any already deposited with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Insurance Company is permitted to recover the amount, so deposited, from the owner of the vehicle namely, A.K.Mahalingam, by due process of law. I am informed, there is a delay of 908 days in filing the appeal, for which period, the Insurance company need not pay interest at 7.5% per annum. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. No order as to costs."

4.In view of that particular reason, the word "not" is deleted in the last line of paragraph No.4.

5.All other observations made in the earlier order dated 15.03.2022, shall remain intact.

6.The Registry is directed to issue fresh order copy after carrying out necessary corrections.

20.02.2023

smv

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN.J,

smv

C.M.A.No.411 of 2018

20.02.2023

4/4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis