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

Evidence

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

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 166

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

09-04-2026

Evidence

10-03-2026

Evidence

06-03-2026

Evidence

06-02-2026

Evidence

05-12-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

10-03-2026
Copy of Deposition

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.

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.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Sub Court, Sathyamangalam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case