Sathish Kumar vs noojahan — 180/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166. Status: Steps. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNCG130005242022
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
505/2022
Filing Date
03-08-2022
Registration No
180/2022
Registration Date
21-09-2022
Court
Sub Court, Maduranthakam
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sathish Kumar
Adv. Manmadhan
Respondent(s)
noojahan
The Divisional Manager,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Steps
Steps
Await Reports
Await Reports
Await Reports
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | Steps |
| 08-04-2026 | Steps |
| 16-03-2026 | Await Reports |
| 16-02-2026 | Await Reports |
| 15-12-2025 | Await Reports |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts