K.Jayachandran and one another vs S.M.Mohmmed Rafick and two others — 67/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNED050000282021
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
31/2021
Filing Date
05-01-2021
Registration No
67/2021
Registration Date
25-08-2021
Court
Sub Court, Sathyamangalam
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.Jayachandran and one another
Adv. S.M.Appusamy
J.Padma
Respondent(s)
S.M.Mohmmed Rafick and two others
B.Durairaj
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 05-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this MCOP case (No. 67/2021) dated 10.03.2026 from the Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam, the court examined the petitioner's (Padma) cross-examination regarding a fatal accident involving her son. The petitioner contested the police investigation findings and claimed a truck (TAL 8997) caused the accident, while police records attributed it to her son losing control of his motorcycle. The court found the petitioner's testimony credible regarding her claims about the accident circumstances and the insurance compensation claim, and rejected the defendants' (truck driver and owner) counterclaims as false. No re-examination was ordered, and the court directed that the compensation petition proceed accordingly based on the established facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this MCOP case (No. 67/2021) dated 10.03.2026 from the Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam, the court examined the petitioner's (Padma) cross-examination regarding a fatal accident involving her son. The petitioner contested the police investigation findings and claimed a truck (TAL 8997) caused the accident, while police records attributed it to her son losing control of his motorcycle. The court found the petitioner's testimony credible regarding her claims about the accident circumstances and the insurance compensation claim, and rejected the defendants' (truck driver and owner) counterclaims as false. No re-examination was ordered, and the court directed that the compensation petition proceed accordingly based on the established facts. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts