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

Steps

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

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 140,166

Petitioner(s)

Sathish Kumar

Adv. Manmadhan

Respondent(s)

noojahan

The Divisional Manager,

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge

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

17-03-2025
Copy of Deposition

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Maduranthakam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case