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

Evidence

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

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,141,142,166

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

06-03-2026

Evidence

07-02-2026

Evidence

23-01-2026

Enquiry

18-12-2025

Enquiry

05-12-2025

Enquiry

Interim Orders

07-02-2026
Copy of deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case