Kumar vs Jayaraman — 100390/2013
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166MVAct1988. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKI050004132013
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Date
09-12-2013
Registration No
100390/2013
Registration Date
09-12-2013
Court
Sub Court, Hosur
Judge
1-Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Kumar
Adv. ANAND KUMAR.K
Respondent(s)
Jayaraman
The Oriential IInsurance co. Ltd.
Adv. NANJE GOWDU.K
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal Subordinate Judge, Hosur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 30-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 26-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: 100390/2013 (M.C.O.P No. 390/2013) Court: Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosur Date: 29.06.2022 Outcome: The petition/cross-objection was dismissed. The court rejected Kumar's claims regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.04.2013 near Classic Hotel in Hosur. Kumar alleged negligence and sought compensation, but the court found his arguments regarding liability, insurance coverage, and damages to be unsubstantiated. The court held that Kumar failed to establish that respondent Jayaraman was solely responsible for the accident, and issues regarding insurance claim procedures under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were found to be procedurally improper in this proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: 100390/2013 (M.C.O.P No. 390/2013) Court: Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Hosur Date: 29.06.2022 Outcome: The petition/cross-objection was dismissed. The court rejected Kumar's claims regarding a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 30.04.2013 near Classic Hotel in Hosur. Kumar alleged negligence and sought compensation, but the court found his arguments regarding liability, insurance coverage, and damages to be unsubstantiated. The court held that Kumar failed to establish that respondent Jayaraman was solely responsible for the accident, and issues regarding insurance claim procedures under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act were found to be procedurally improper in this proceeding. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts