Sathish Kumar vs noojahan — 180/2022

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Steps Next hearing 15-Jun-2026 this date has passed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNCG130005242022

Filing Number

505/2022

Filing Date

03-Aug-2022

Registration No

180/2022

Registration Date

21-Sep-2022

Court

Sub Court, Maduranthakam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sathish Kumar

    Adv. Manmadhan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.noojahan

  2. 2.The Divisional Manager,

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Steps

    Subordinate Judge

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Steps

    Subordinate Judge

  4. 16-Mar-2026

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 16-Feb-2026

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  6. 15-Dec-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 13-Nov-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  8. 13-Oct-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 11-Sep-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  10. 11-Aug-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 11-Jul-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 11-Jun-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  13. 17-Apr-2025

    Await Reports

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 17-Mar-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: MCOP 180/2022 In this matter before the Madurai Court (dated 17.03.2025), petitioner Sathish Kumar's cross-examination testimony was recorded. Kumar claimed injuries to his nose and face but disputed the severity documented in earlier statements, asserting he has 8th-grade education only. He stated he collided with the first respondent's vehicle and acknowledged delayed complaint filing. Regarding the second respondent (Divisional Manager), Kumar argued they bear no liability for damages despite admitting he caused the incident. He also contested that his submitted documents were fabricated for the petition and denied suffering serious injuries. No cross-examination by the second respondent was recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  15. 17-Mar-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 03-Mar-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 17-Feb-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  18. 17-Feb-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 18-Nov-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 18-Sep-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 06-Jul-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 26-Apr-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  23. 05-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  24. 23-Jan-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  25. 08-Dec-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  26. 13-Oct-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  27. 22-Sep-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  28. 22-Jul-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  29. 21-Jul-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  30. 02-Jun-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  31. 31-Mar-2023

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  32. 13-Feb-2023

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  33. 19-Dec-2022

    Issue of Service

    Subordinate Judge

  34. 27-Oct-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  35. 03-Aug-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 180/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCOP 180/2022 In this matter before the Madurai Court (dated 17.03.2025), petitioner Sathish Kumar's cross-examination testimony was recorded. Kumar claimed injuries to his nose and face but disputed the severity documented in earlier statements, asserting he has 8th-grade education only. He stated he collided with the first respondent's vehicle and acknowledged delayed complaint filing. Regarding the second respondent (Divisional Manager), Kumar argued they bear no liability for damages despite admitting he caused the incident. He also contested that his submitted documents were fabricated for the petition and denied suffering serious injuries. No cross-examination by the second respondent was recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case