Sivagami vs Mr. N.Janakiraman — 66/2023
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 166. Status: Orders. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKI160007102023
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
Filing Number
433/2023
Filing Date
05-07-2023
Registration No
66/2023
Registration Date
22-12-2023
Court
Sub Court, Denkanikottai
Judge
3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sivagami
Adv. VENKATESH KUMAR.R
Respondent(s)
Mr. N.Janakiraman
Mr. P. perumal
M/S Magma General insurance company Limited
Hearing History
Judge: 3-Subordinate Judge, Denkanikottai
Orders
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Orders |
| 26-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 19-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 12-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: In MCOP 66/2023 before the Sub Judge, Denkanikottai, the court recorded the deposition of witness R. Premkumar (RW2 for respondent) on 16.04.2026 regarding a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle TN 29 AH 3886 that occurred in 2021. The witness, an employee of Magma General Insurance Company, testified that the petitioner (Sivagami) was a third-party passenger in the three-wheeler auto involved in the accident. The court's order indicated that the insurance company should settle compensation to the petitioners and recover the amount from the vehicle owner (second respondent). No cross-examination was noted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: In MCOP 66/2023 before the Sub Judge, Denkanikottai, the court recorded the deposition of witness R. Premkumar (RW2 for respondent) on 16.04.2026 regarding a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle TN 29 AH 3886 that occurred in 2021. The witness, an employee of Magma General Insurance Company, testified that the petitioner (Sivagami) was a third-party passenger in the three-wheeler auto involved in the accident. The court's order indicated that the insurance company should settle compensation to the petitioners and recover the amount from the vehicle owner (second respondent). No cross-examination was noted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts