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.

Evidence Next hearing 18-Jun-2026 this date has passed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNED050000282021

Filing Number

31/2021

Filing Date

05-Jan-2021

Registration No

67/2021

Registration Date

25-Aug-2021

Court

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Last updated 27-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K.Jayachandran and one another

    Adv. S.M.Appusamy

  2. 2.J.Padma

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.S.M.Mohmmed Rafick and two others

  2. 2.B.Durairaj

  3. 3.The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.,

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    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.

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  7. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  8. 05-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  9. 07-Nov-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  10. 07-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Subordinate Judge

  11. 26-Sep-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  12. 04-Sep-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  13. 31-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  14. 10-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  15. 03-Apr-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  16. 30-Jan-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  17. 23-Jan-2025

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  18. 19-Dec-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  19. 18-Jul-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  20. 07-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  21. 21-Dec-2023

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  22. 11-Aug-2023

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  23. 20-Apr-2023

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  24. 23-Mar-2023

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  25. 03-Feb-2023

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  26. 25-Nov-2022

    Enquiry

    Subordinate Judge

  27. 11-Nov-2022

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  28. 04-Nov-2022

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  29. 15-Sep-2022

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  30. 16-Jun-2022

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  31. 31-Mar-2022

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  32. 27-Jan-2022

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  33. 25-Nov-2021

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  34. 27-Sep-2021

    Counter

    Subordinate Judge

  35. 25-Aug-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  36. 05-Jan-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 67/2021

casestatus.in Summary

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.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case