IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.08.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P.SR.No.22090/2015 V.Arulmozhi ... Petitioner v.
1. Mr.S.Jayaramachandran Regional Transport Officer Chennai [East], Chennai-12.
2. Mr.P.Muruganandam M.V.Inspector O/o.The Regional Transport Office Chengalpattu, Kancheepuram District [Both through Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai-5.]
3. The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
4. The Secretary to Government Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
5. Mr.B.Balachandran The Inspector of Police E6, Thiruporur Police Station Kancheepuram District. [through DGP, Mylapore Chennai – 4.]
6. The Additional Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
7. M/s.Namaskar Roadways [Pvt] Ltd. 198, Prakasam Road, Broadway Chennai 600 108.
8. The Chief Manager United India Insurance Co., No.24, Whites Road, Royapettah Chennai 600 014.
9. A.Shanmugam ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus [1] calling for the records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent in Letter No.47184/m3/2003 dated 09.09.2003, releasing of van involved in a fatal accident on 18.08.2003, to quash the same with a further direction [2] to direct the 8th respondent to reveal the petitioner the insurance particulars of Medium Goods Vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-09-H- 5425 while initial new Registration Policy No.498684 dated 22.05.1996 that hit petitioner's son fatally on 18.08.2003 as stated above, owned by the 7th respondent herein ; [3] to direct the 4th respondent / State to pay a compensation amount with interest that would be decided by a judgment and decree to be passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu in MCOP.No.487/2004 within a month thereon.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Veerabagu ORDER The petitioner has filed the above writ petition to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus [1] to call for the records of the proceedings of the 1st respondent dated 09.09.2003, releasing the van involved in a fatal accident on 18.08.2003 and to quash the same ; [2] with a further direction to direct the 8th respondent to reveal the petitioner the insurance particulars of the Medium Goods Vehicle bearing Regn.No.TN- 09-H-5425 vide new Registration Policy dated 22.05.1996 that hit the petitioner's son fatally on 18.08.2003 owned by the 7th respondent and [3] to direct the 4th respondent / State to pay a compensation amount with interest that would be decided by a judgment and decree to be passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu in MCOP.No.487/2004 within a month thereon.
2 The Registry raised a query with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Hence, the matter has been listed under the caption “For Maintainability”.
3 On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it could be seen that a case in MCOP.No.487/2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is pending, claiming compensation for the death of the petitioner's son in the road accident which had occurred on 18.08.2003 alleged to have been caused by the 9th respondent, the driver of the van and owned by the 7th respondent. Now the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the proceedings dated 09.09.2003 passed by the 1st respondent in releasing the vehicle involved in the fatal accident ; to direct the 8th respondent to reveal the insurance particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident ; and to direct the 4th respondent / State to pay the compensation amount with interest to be decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.487/2004.
4 Insofar as the first prayer is concerned, the petitioner has to approach the Criminal Court challenging the releasing of the vehicle and with regard to the prayers 2 and 3, i.e., to direct the Insurance company to furnish insurance particulars of the vehicle involved in the accident and to direct the 4th respondent / State to pay the compensation are concerned, the same cannot be decided in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since the petitioner has filed a Claim Petition in MCOP No.487/2004 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, she has to prosecute the said Original Petition in accordance with law and only the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to pass Award with regard to compensation claimed in the said petition, in case the petitioner is able to prove her case by adducing oral and documentary evidence.
5 In these circumstances, I am of the firm view that the above writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is rejected. No costs.
04.08.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No AP M.DURAISWAMY, J.
AP To
1. The Transport Commissioner Chepauk, Chennai – 5.
2. The Secretary to Government Transport Department, Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
3. The Additional Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
4. M/s.Namaskar Roadways [Pvt] Ltd. 198, Prakasam Road, Broadway Chennai 600 108.
5. The Chief Manager United India Insurance Co., No.24, Whites Road, Royapettah Chennai 600 014.
W.P.SR.NO.22090/2015 04.08.2017