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

Orders

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

CodeofCivilProcedure Section 166

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

16-04-2026

Orders

26-03-2026

Evidence

12-03-2026

Evidence

19-02-2026

Evidence

12-02-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

16-04-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence/Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Sub Court, Denkanikottai All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case