Panjavarnam vs The Managing Director,TNSTC Sivagangai Advocate - Tmt. O. Ushadevi — 138/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--Dismissed on 12th March 2026.

Case disposed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNRM020043492025

Filing Number

156/2025

Filing Date

28-Apr-2023

Registration No

138/2025

Registration Date

07-Nov-2023

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ramanathapuram

Judge

3-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

12-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Dismissed

Last updated 24-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

1.Panjavarnam

Adv. C.Muthumari

Respondent(s)

1.The Managing Director,TNSTC Sivagangai Advocate - Tmt. O. Ushadevi

Case History

Case disposedDisposed
12-Mar-2026

Copy of JudgmentView PDF

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram dismissed the petition filed by 83-year-old Panjavernam seeking Rs. 20 lakhs compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 01.01.2023 against Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The court dismissed the case for default because the petitioner failed to appear for enquiry despite sufficient time being granted and despite having counsel present, resulting in dismissal with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
12-Mar-2026

Disposed

Chief Judicial Magistrate
10-Feb-2026

Enquiry

Chief Judicial Magistrate
08-Jan-2026

Enquiry

Chief Judicial Magistrate
25-Nov-2025

Enquiry

Chief Judicial Magistrate
23-Oct-2025

Enquiry

Chief Judicial Magistrate
12-Sep-2025

First hearing

Initial hearing scheduled
28-Apr-2023

Case filed

Registration No. 138/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ramanathapuram dismissed the petition filed by 83-year-old Panjavernam seeking Rs. 20 lakhs compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident on 01.01.2023 against Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. The court dismissed the case for default because the petitioner failed to appear for enquiry despite sufficient time being granted and despite having counsel present, resulting in dismissal with no costs awarded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.