MAHESHWAR vs JEKAB R — 4/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166,24(3). Status: Part Heard. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKI160001112025
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
28-04-2025
Filing Number
123/2025
Filing Date
29-04-2025
Registration No
4/2025
Registration Date
29-04-2025
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MAHESHWAR
Adv. GANESAN R
Respondent(s)
JEKAB R
THE MANAGER OF ZUNO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Part Heard
Part Heard
Part Heard
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 09-04-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-03-2026 | Part Heard |
| 12-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 05-02-2026 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: MCOP.No.4/2025 On 24.07.2025, the Sub Judge, Denkanikottai recorded the deposition of Maheshwar (PW1/Petitioner) in this motor vehicle accident compensation case involving respondents Jekab R and Zuno General Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner presented 17 exhibits including FIR, hospital records, wound certificate, discharge summaries (medical bills totaling Rs.33,01,753), insurance policy, vehicle documents, and driving licenses to establish his claims. The respondents were declared absent, so no cross-examination occurred. The court accepted the petitioner's evidence and exhibits as per the testimony recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MCOP.No.4/2025 On 24.07.2025, the Sub Judge, Denkanikottai recorded the deposition of Maheshwar (PW1/Petitioner) in this motor vehicle accident compensation case involving respondents Jekab R and Zuno General Insurance Company Limited. The petitioner presented 17 exhibits including FIR, hospital records, wound certificate, discharge summaries (medical bills totaling Rs.33,01,753), insurance policy, vehicle documents, and driving licenses to establish his claims. The respondents were declared absent, so no cross-examination occurred. The court accepted the petitioner's evidence and exhibits as per the testimony recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts