JAYAMMA vs MAHESH — 6/2024
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKI160002472024
Filing Number
219/2024
Filing Date
23-11-2018
Registration No
6/2024
Registration Date
01-12-2018
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
JAYAMMA
Adv. YUVARAJ.V
Respondent(s)
MAHESH
THE MANAGER SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Disposed
Appearance
Publication
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 05-02-2026 | Appearance |
| 18-12-2025 | Publication |
| 13-11-2025 | Steps |
| 06-11-2025 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this motor vehicle accident compensation case, petitioner Jayamma testified that she sustained injuries including head wounds requiring 5 stitches and a right arm fracture when the tempo traveler vehicle she was traveling in met with an accident on 13.11.2024. The court recorded her deposition as PW1, wherein she presented medical documents, FIR details, insurance certificate, and medical bills as evidence of her injuries and treatment at government hospitals. The respondents contested the claim arguing policy violations due to lack of permit and commercial vehicle status, but the court admitted Jayamma's testimony and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this motor vehicle accident compensation case, petitioner Jayamma testified that she sustained injuries including head wounds requiring 5 stitches and a right arm fracture when the tempo traveler vehicle she was traveling in met with an accident on 13.11.2024. The court recorded her deposition as PW1, wherein she presented medical documents, FIR details, insurance certificate, and medical bills as evidence of her injuries and treatment at government hospitals. The respondents contested the claim arguing policy violations due to lack of permit and commercial vehicle status, but the court admitted Jayamma's testimony and documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts