K.AYISHA SITHIKA vs M.NAGARAJ AND 2 OTHERS — 383/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166. Status: Orders. Next hearing: 04th June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKR080010512022
Next Hearing
04th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1106/2022
Filing Date
19-10-2022
Registration No
383/2022
Registration Date
07-11-2022
Court
Sub Court, Kulithalai
Judge
12-Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.AYISHA SITHIKA
Adv. A.JAFFAR SHAT
K.MOHAMMED YASIN
K.SYED ABUTHAGIR
MINOR K.SIKKANTHARAMMA
MINOR K.JAINULABUDHIN
Respondent(s)
M.NAGARAJ AND 2 OTHERS
C.PALANISAMY
THE MANAGER,M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,KARUR
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Sub Judge
Orders
For further Proceedings
Orders
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 16-04-2026 | Orders | |
| 30-03-2026 | For further Proceedings | |
| 10-03-2026 | Orders | |
| 11-12-2025 | Arguments | |
| 13-11-2025 | Arguments |
Interim Orders
Summary In this motor vehicle compensation case (MCOP.NO. 383/2022) heard on 16.09.2025, the court examined witness testimony regarding a vehicle with registration TN 01 AQ 5969 involved in an accident. The witness (respondent's side) testified that the vehicle's fitness certificate and driver's license were valid at the time of the accident, but the motor vehicle inspector's report did not mention these documents, and the insurance company contended it should not bear liability as the affected parties are third parties. The case was adjourned for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In this motor vehicle compensation case (MCOP.NO. 383/2022) heard on 16.09.2025, the court examined witness testimony regarding a vehicle with registration TN 01 AQ 5969 involved in an accident. The witness (respondent's side) testified that the vehicle's fitness certificate and driver's license were valid at the time of the accident, but the motor vehicle inspector's report did not mention these documents, and the insurance company contended it should not bear liability as the affected parties are third parties. The case was adjourned for further proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts