Sivaranjani vs Raja kili — 175/2024

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,141,142,163B,166,182A. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNRM010049002024

Arguments

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

e-Filing Number

19-09-2024

Filing Number

620/2024

Filing Date

20-09-2024

Registration No

175/2024

Registration Date

27-09-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

2-Additional District Judge

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,141,142,163B,166,182A

Petitioner(s)

Sivaranjani

Adv. MUTHUDURAY SAMY

Nithiya

Adv. MUTHUDURAY SAMY

Madhubala

Adv. MUTHUDURAY SAMY

Ajith Kumar

Adv. MUTHUDURAY SAMY

Manikandan

Adv. MUTHUDURAY SAMY

Respondent(s)

Raja kili

Assistant legal manager, MAGMA HDI general insurance co Ltd, Chennai

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional District Judge

30-04-2026

Arguments

16-04-2026

Evidence

10-04-2026

Evidence

09-04-2026

Evidence

02-04-2026

Evidence

Interim Orders

02-09-2025
Copy of deposition

SUMMARY: In this motor accident compensation petition (MCOP 175/2024) dated 02.09.2025, the Additional District Judge of Ramanathapuram court examined cross-examination statements and rejected various contentions of the petitioners regarding dependency, accident circumstances, and insurance liability. The court dismissed the petition against the second respondent (insurance company) and upheld that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation due to policy violations by the vehicle operator. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

SUMMARY: In this motor accident compensation petition (MCOP 175/2024) dated 02.09.2025, the Additional District Judge of Ramanathapuram court examined cross-examination statements and rejected various contentions of the petitioners regarding dependency, accident circumstances, and insurance liability. The court dismissed the petition against the second respondent (insurance company) and upheld that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation due to policy violations by the vehicle operator. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case