SENTHILMURUGAN vs ELANTHAMIZH — 141/2024
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 142,166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 20th April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNMY030006682024
Next Hearing
20th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
432/2024
Filing Date
15-11-2022
Registration No
141/2024
Registration Date
30-04-2024
Court
Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai
Judge
1-Principal Sub Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SENTHILMURUGAN
Adv. Thiru T. NANMARAN
Respondent(s)
ELANTHAMIZH
ILANTAMIL
THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELAINCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal Sub Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 18-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 13-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case Number: MCOP.No.141/2024 Court: Principal District Court, Tilaipadi Date: 09.04.2026 Outcome: The witness (PW1) was examined and his testimony recorded. During cross-examination by the second defendant, the witness's credibility was substantially challenged on multiple grounds, including contradictions regarding the accident circumstances, driver's license and insurance validity, medical treatment claims, and insurance claim details. The court found no negligence or rash driving by the second defendant and held that no relief should be granted against him in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case Number: MCOP.No.141/2024 Court: Principal District Court, Tilaipadi Date: 09.04.2026 Outcome: The witness (PW1) was examined and his testimony recorded. During cross-examination by the second defendant, the witness's credibility was substantially challenged on multiple grounds, including contradictions regarding the accident circumstances, driver's license and insurance validity, medical treatment claims, and insurance claim details. The court found no negligence or rash driving by the second defendant and held that no relief should be granted against him in this case. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts