Rajesh Kunnumbrath vs Viswanathan T V — 1226/2022

Case under Motor Vehicle Act \ Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN on 21st April 2026.

Case disposed

OP (MV) - ORIGINAL PETITION (MOTOR VEHICLES)

CNR: KLKN010050302022

Filing Number

1226/2022

Filing Date

16-Sep-2022

Registration No

1226/2022

Registration Date

16-Sep-2022

Court

District Court and Sessions Court / Rent Control Appellate Authority, Thalassery

Judge

5-4th Additional District Judge

Decision Date

21-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN

Last updated 25-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act \ Section 166
Ia/1/2026 Classification : Withdrawal Petition Section Rajesh KunnumbrathViswanathan T V

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajesh Kunnumbrath

    Adv. Sandeep V

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Viswanathan T V

  2. 2.The New India Assurance Co. LTD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 21-Apr-2026

    OrderView PDF

    Summary: The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Thalassery allowed the petitioner Rajesh Kunnumbrath to withdraw his case against Viswanathan T.V. and New India Assurance Company Ltd, permitting him to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with allegations of deficiency of service against the insurance company instead. The court clarified that while the petitioner may argue for exclusion of the pendency period for limitation purposes before the consumer forum, such determination remains the decision of the appropriate tribunal, not this court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    4th Additional District Judge

  4. 23-Mar-2026

    Petitioner prays

    4th Additional District Judge

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Petitioner prays

    4th Additional District Judge

  6. 10-Feb-2026

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  7. 18-Dec-2025

    Further evidence

    4th Additional District Judge

  8. 27-Nov-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  9. 20-Nov-2025

    Further evidence

    4th Additional District Judge

  10. 15-Oct-2025

    Further evidence

    4th Additional District Judge

  11. 27-Sep-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  12. 02-Sep-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  13. 07-Aug-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  14. 08-Jul-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  15. 16-Jun-2025

    Petitioner prays

    4th Additional District Judge

  16. 15-May-2025

    Petitioner prays

    4th Additional District Judge

  17. 28-Apr-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  18. 19-Apr-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  19. 15-Mar-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  20. 03-Mar-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  21. 07-Feb-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  22. 13-Jan-2025

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  23. 24-Dec-2024

    For evidence.

    4th Additional District Judge

  24. 10-Sep-2024

    Written Statement

    4th Additional District Judge

  25. 10-Jun-2024

    Call with IA

    4th Additional District Judge

  26. 06-Mar-2024

    Call with IA

    4th Additional District Judge

  27. 06-Jan-2024

    Call with IA

    4th Additional District Judge

  28. 06-Oct-2023

    Call with IA

    4th Additional District Judge

  29. 26-Sep-2023

    Call with IA

    4th Additional District Judge

  30. 26-Jun-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 16-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1226/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Thalassery allowed the petitioner Rajesh Kunnumbrath to withdraw his case against Viswanathan T.V. and New India Assurance Company Ltd, permitting him to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with allegations of deficiency of service against the insurance company instead. The court clarified that while the petitioner may argue for exclusion of the pendency period for limitation purposes before the consumer forum, such determination remains the decision of the appropriate tribunal, not this court. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case