S.Munjunath vs S.Prakash — 19/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 09th April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKI160005842023
Filing Number
369/2023
Filing Date
25-01-2022
Registration No
19/2023
Registration Date
22-12-2023
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--Dismissed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
S.Munjunath
Adv. KADRESAN M
Respondent(s)
S.Prakash
The Branch Manager Cholamandalam Ms. General Insurance Co., Ltd., Hosur
S.Venkatesan
The magnager, ShriRam Generala Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Disposed
Steps
Steps
Steps
Steps
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | Steps |
| 19-02-2026 | Steps |
| 05-02-2026 | Steps |
| 29-01-2026 | Steps |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: S. Munjunath v. S. Prakash and Others (19/2023) The petitioner S. Munjunath sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident near Hosur, claiming he lost a leg requiring permanent medical treatment. The court found the petitioner lacked a valid driving license at the time of the accident and that he failed to produce documentary evidence of his medical expenses, with discrepancies between claimed amounts (₹3,40,404) and actual payments (₹2,64,000). The court dismissed the petition against respondents 1 and 2 (first respondent's vehicle owner and insurer) as they were non-parties to the accident, and dismissed claims against respondent 3 (the actual driver) due to the petitioner's lack of proper licensing and insufficient substantiation of damages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: S. Munjunath v. S. Prakash and Others (19/2023) The petitioner S. Munjunath sought compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident near Hosur, claiming he lost a leg requiring permanent medical treatment. The court found the petitioner lacked a valid driving license at the time of the accident and that he failed to produce documentary evidence of his medical expenses, with discrepancies between claimed amounts (₹3,40,404) and actual payments (₹2,64,000). The court dismissed the petition against respondents 1 and 2 (first respondent's vehicle owner and insurer) as they were non-parties to the accident, and dismissed claims against respondent 3 (the actual driver) due to the petitioner's lack of proper licensing and insufficient substantiation of damages. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts