P.SHANTHI AND OTHERS vs M.GURUSAMY AND ONE ANOTHER Advocate - R.MADHU — 72/2020
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 02nd June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNKR080013462019
Filing Number
1394/2019
Filing Date
04-Oct-2019
Registration No
72/2020
Registration Date
12-Feb-2020
Court
Sub Court, Kulithalai
Judge
12-Sub Judge
Last updated 28-Apr-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.P.SHANTHI AND OTHERS
Adv. L.KAMARAJ
-
2.MINOR P.VIGNESH
-
3.MINOR ANITHA
-
4.P.CHANDRA
Respondent(s)
-
1.M.GURUSAMY AND ONE ANOTHER Advocate - R.MADHU
-
2.THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED, TRICHY
Case History
-
02-Jun-2026
Next hearingPending
-
24-Mar-2026
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
Summary: In this Motor Claims Ombudsman case (MCOP.NO.72/2020) from Cuddalore, the insurance company (second respondent) contested a motor vehicle accident claim. The court found that while the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle TN47 AP 5145, the insurance company's policy did not provide complete coverage for the first respondent's vehicle. The court rejected the insurance company's liability claim, holding that the company is not liable to pay compensation as full coverage was not available under the policy. The witness testimony was recorded and the case concluded accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Mar-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge
-
10-Mar-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge
-
10-Feb-2026
Arguments
Sub Judge
-
25-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
20-Nov-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
04-Sep-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
10-Jul-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
12-Jun-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
03-Apr-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
04-Feb-2025
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
03-Dec-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
17-Oct-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
17-Sep-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
13-Aug-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
18-Jul-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
15-Jun-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
16-Apr-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
05-Mar-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
15-Feb-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
11-Jan-2024
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
07-Dec-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
09-Nov-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
12-Oct-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
21-Sep-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
07-Sep-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
03-Aug-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
22-Jun-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
11-Apr-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
07-Mar-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
07-Feb-2023
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
08-Dec-2022
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
17-Nov-2022
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
13-Oct-2022
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
01-Sep-2022
Evidence
Sub Judge
-
11-Aug-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
05-Jul-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
01-Jul-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
29-Jun-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
22-Jun-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
17-Jun-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
22-Apr-2022
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
22-Apr-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
08-Apr-2022
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
08-Apr-2022
Copy of Oral Evidence / DepositionView PDF
-
08-Apr-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
11-Feb-2022
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
21-Dec-2021
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
20-Dec-2021
Counter
Sub Judge
-
16-Dec-2021
Counter
Sub Judge
-
03-Dec-2021
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
22-Sep-2021
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
23-Jun-2021
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
29-Mar-2021
Enquiry
Sub Judge
-
01-Feb-2021
Counter
Sub Judge
-
18-Nov-2020
Counter
Sub Judge
-
19-Aug-2020
Counter
Sub Judge
-
10-Jun-2020
Counter
Sub Judge
-
17-Mar-2020
Counter
Sub Judge
-
12-Feb-2020
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
04-Oct-2019
Case filed
Registration No. 72/2020
Summary: In this Motor Claims Ombudsman case (MCOP.NO.72/2020) from Cuddalore, the insurance company (second respondent) contested a motor vehicle accident claim. The court found that while the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of vehicle TN47 AP 5145, the insurance company's policy did not provide complete coverage for the first respondent's vehicle. The court rejected the insurance company's liability claim, holding that the company is not liable to pay compensation as full coverage was not available under the policy. The witness testimony was recorded and the case concluded accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts