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
Next Hearing
02nd June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1394/2019
Filing Date
04-10-2019
Registration No
72/2020
Registration Date
12-02-2020
Court
Sub Court, Kulithalai
Judge
12-Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
P.SHANTHI AND OTHERS
Adv. L.KAMARAJ
MINOR P.VIGNESH
MINOR ANITHA
P.CHANDRA
Respondent(s)
M.GURUSAMY AND ONE ANOTHER Advocate - R.MADHU
THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITTED, TRICHY
Hearing History
Judge: 12-Sub Judge
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-02-2026 | Arguments | |
| 25-11-2025 | Evidence | |
| 20-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts