Justice V Parthiban before whom the plea moved by R Kala came up seeking to direct the Omallur Town Panchayat to restore the water connection, said: “Though an opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to produce the document pertaining to the property for which she seeks water connection, even today, the petitioner has not come forward with any document.”— Justice G Jayachandran, before whom the appeal moved by the insurance firm against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur, came up said: “It is unfortunate that the tribunal without considering the evidence which proves that the offending vehicle was not under insurance with the appellant company at the time of the accident, and the policy certificate produced by the car owner is fake, the tribunal for extraneous reasons has overlooked the overwhelming evidence.”

E-Paper

Logo Toggle navigation
Thu, Apr 15, 2021

HOME
NEWS
CHENNAI

RI in soup for water connection application in name of deceased
Published: Apr 15,202103:16 AM

Share Tweet Comments (0)
Mail Print AA
The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 10,000 on a woman revenue inspector (RI) who allegedly occupied another person’s property and also made an application for a water connection in the name of a dead person in whose name the property remains registered.

Chennai: Justice V Parthiban before whom the plea moved by R Kala came up seeking to direct the Omallur Town Panchayat to restore the water connection, said: “Though an opportunity has been provided to the petitioner to produce the document pertaining to the property for which she seeks water connection, even today, the petitioner has not come forward with any document.”

“Even in the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it is only averred that the said property has been gifted to the petitioner’s father 50 years back by the said Manickachetty without any deed. Manickachetty died in 1995 whereas the application for water connection was made in 2013,” the judge said while imposing the Rs 10,000 cost for approaching the court with unclean hands.

Based on this, Justice Parthiban also directed the Salem District Collector to conduct an enquiry with regards to this averment against the petitioner and take action as per the law if it is found that the petitioner has unauthorisedly occupied the Government poramboke land and has also occupied a dead person’s land by taking advantage of her official capacity.

The town panchayat had submitted that the petitioner is in possession of government poramboke land and has constructed a house in the said land and had encroached upon the property of one Manickachetty who died in 1995. On coming to know about the illegality perpetuated by applying and signing for water connection in the deceased Manickachetty’s name, the water connection was snapped.

The petitioner who is a District Supply and Consumer Protection Officer, Salem had claimed that her father had received six cents of land from Manickachetty, 50 years ago and no deed was executed. The town panchayat had also provided water connection 30 years ago and following some repair work, the town panchayat which suspended the water connection is yet to resume it.

HC sets aside tribunal order as vehicle insured post mishap

Citing a Supreme Court judgment that if the insurance cover is proved to be renewed after the accident, then the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner, the Madras High Court dismissed a tribunal order entertaining a claim petition against an insurance company despite the car owner renewing his insurance cover after the accident.

Justice G Jayachandran, before whom the appeal moved by the insurance firm against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hosur, came up said: “It is unfortunate that the tribunal without considering the evidence which proves that the offending vehicle was not under insurance with the appellant company at the time of the accident, and the policy certificate produced by the car owner is fake, the tribunal for extraneous reasons has overlooked the overwhelming evidence.”

The insurance company had submitted that the tribunal failed to appreciate that the owner of the Bolero car, which caused the accident, had no valid insurance cover at the time of the accident.

While the accident occurred at 11 am on December 16, 2013, there was no valid insurance coverage and the vehicle owner, suppressing the fact that the accident occurred in the morning, took a policy at 8 pm on the day and the certificate was generated the next day in the system with time stamp for receiving Rs 13,476 towards the premium.

Based on this, Justice Jayachandran on holding that the firm had proved to the core that the offending vehicle was insured after the accident, directed the accident victim to proceed against the car owner for compensation and exonerated the insurance company from the liability to compensate the accident victim.
Related Tags :

You may also like...