Ramappa vs D. Jawahar — 54/2023
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKI160006882023
Next Hearing
18th June 2026
Filing Number
422/2023
Filing Date
22-02-2023
Registration No
54/2023
Registration Date
22-12-2023
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Ramappa
Adv. SELVI.K
Respondent(s)
D. Jawahar
The Branch Manager, The United India Insurance Company Limitted
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 02-04-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 22-01-2026 | Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: MCOP.54/2023 - Ramappa v. D. Jawahar and United India Insurance Company Limited In this motor accident compensation petition, petitioner Ramappa admitted liability for a two-wheeler collision caused by his negligence and lack of valid driving license. The court found respondent D. Jawahar's (first respondent's) vehicle permit had expired on 07.12.2015 at the time of accident, constituting policy violation. The court dismissed the petition, holding United India Insurance Company (second respondent) not liable to pay compensation due to policy breach, and directing Ramappa to seek damages from the first respondent instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MCOP.54/2023 - Ramappa v. D. Jawahar and United India Insurance Company Limited In this motor accident compensation petition, petitioner Ramappa admitted liability for a two-wheeler collision caused by his negligence and lack of valid driving license. The court found respondent D. Jawahar's (first respondent's) vehicle permit had expired on 07.12.2015 at the time of accident, constituting policy violation. The court dismissed the petition, holding United India Insurance Company (second respondent) not liable to pay compensation due to policy breach, and directing Ramappa to seek damages from the first respondent instead. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts