K.KRISHNAVENI AND ONE OTHER vs SUBASHINI DEVI AND ONE OTHERS — 1200083/2016
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKR080002842016
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1200083/2016
Filing Date
17-03-2016
Registration No
1200083/2016
Registration Date
17-03-2016
Court
Sub Court, Kulithalai
Judge
12-Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.KRISHNAVENI AND ONE OTHER
Adv. P.G.SENTHILKUMAR
S.SELVARANI
K.GUNASEKAR
MALAYAMMAL
Respondent(s)
SUBASHINI DEVI AND ONE OTHERS
THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED, KARUR
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Sub Judge
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
Batta
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | Arguments | |
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 22-01-2026 | Batta | |
| 04-12-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a Motor Vehicles Compensation Order (MCOP) No. 83/2016 from the Cuddalore Court dated 17.04.2025, concerning a motor vehicle accident claim. The court heard witness testimony and examined evidence including investigation reports, insurance policy documents, and vehicle inspection reports, finding critical gaps in the investigation regarding driver identification and insurance coverage details. The court dismissed the petitioner's compensation claim due to insufficient evidence linking the vehicle owner and driver, and lack of proof that proper insurance coverage was in place at the time of the accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Motor Vehicles Compensation Order (MCOP) No. 83/2016 from the Cuddalore Court dated 17.04.2025, concerning a motor vehicle accident claim. The court heard witness testimony and examined evidence including investigation reports, insurance policy documents, and vehicle inspection reports, finding critical gaps in the investigation regarding driver identification and insurance coverage details. The court dismissed the petitioner's compensation claim due to insufficient evidence linking the vehicle owner and driver, and lack of proof that proper insurance coverage was in place at the time of the accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts