CHELIAN vs THE PROPRIETOR, SENTHIL MURUGAN TRANSPORT, RAMANATHAPURAM DT — 31/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,141,142,166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNRM010002462025
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
e-Filing Number
09-01-2025
Filing Number
47/2025
Filing Date
09-01-2025
Registration No
31/2025
Registration Date
22-01-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
CHELIAN
Adv. THIRUMALAIKUMAR P.
KARTHIYAYINI
Adv. THIRUMALAIKUMAR P.
Respondent(s)
THE PROPRIETOR, SENTHIL MURUGAN TRANSPORT, RAMANATHAPURAM DT
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO, MADURAI
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Principal District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 07-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 23-01-2026 | Enquiry |
| 18-12-2025 | Enquiry |
| 05-12-2025 | Enquiry |
Interim Orders
Summary: In this Motor Vehicles Act compensation case (MCOP 31/2025) from Ramanathapuram District Court dated 07.02.2026, the defendant's cross-examination testimony was recorded. The defendant contested the claimant's petition for insurance compensation arising from a 2019 bus accident where her husband sustained injuries and died in 2024, arguing insufficient documentary evidence of causation and that the claim was time-barred. The court rejected the defendant's objections and proceeded with the examination, ultimately dismissing the defendant's arguments against the compensation claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In this Motor Vehicles Act compensation case (MCOP 31/2025) from Ramanathapuram District Court dated 07.02.2026, the defendant's cross-examination testimony was recorded. The defendant contested the claimant's petition for insurance compensation arising from a 2019 bus accident where her husband sustained injuries and died in 2024, arguing insufficient documentary evidence of causation and that the claim was time-barred. The court rejected the defendant's objections and proceeded with the examination, ultimately dismissing the defendant's arguments against the compensation claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts