Kuppusamy vs Abdullah and another — 28/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--Decreed with cost on 15th May 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNCG060049452022
Filing Number
10/2022
Filing Date
13-04-2022
Registration No
28/2022
Registration Date
13-04-2022
Court
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Chengalpet
Judge
4-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu
Decision Date
15th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Decreed with cost
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kuppusamy
Adv. Sathish G
Respondent(s)
Abdullah and another
Mohammed Ibrahim
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu
Disposed
Orders
Orders
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 15-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 08-05-2026 | Orders |
| 02-04-2026 | Orders |
| 25-03-2026 | Arguments |
| 16-03-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: Kuppusamy v. Abdullah and Mohammed Ibrahim (MCOP 28/2022) Decision: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,69,100 in compensation to petitioner Kuppusamy for grievous injuries sustained in a two-wheeler collision on 20.07.2019, holding only the vehicle owner (1st respondent Abdullah) liable after the driver (2nd respondent) failed to appear and contest. Key Reasoning: The tribunal found the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving based on the FIR and petitioner's testimony. However, insufficient evidence linked the 2nd respondent as the actual driver, so only the 1st respondent as vehicle owner was held responsible. Compensation included Rs. 1,00,000 for 10% permanent disability, plus medical expenses and other heads of damages, with 7.5% annual interest from petition filing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: Kuppusamy v. Abdullah and Mohammed Ibrahim (MCOP 28/2022) Decision: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,69,100 in compensation to petitioner Kuppusamy for grievous injuries sustained in a two-wheeler collision on 20.07.2019, holding only the vehicle owner (1st respondent Abdullah) liable after the driver (2nd respondent) failed to appear and contest. Key Reasoning: The tribunal found the accident resulted from rash and negligent driving based on the FIR and petitioner's testimony. However, insufficient evidence linked the 2nd respondent as the actual driver, so only the 1st respondent as vehicle owner was held responsible. Compensation included Rs. 1,00,000 for 10% permanent disability, plus medical expenses and other heads of damages, with 7.5% annual interest from petition filing date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts