Mangammal vs Palanisamy — 140/2018
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section Section166. Status: IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNTI030002242018
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
140/2018
Filing Date
07-07-2018
Registration No
140/2018
Registration Date
10-07-2018
Court
Additional District and Sessions Court, Dharapuram
Judge
1-III Additional District and Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mangammal
Adv. Vijayakumar K
Minor. Jeeva
Minor.Sangeetha
Minor.Swetha
Minor.Eaganya
Respondent(s)
Palanisamy
Karthick
Adv. Udhayachandran R
Dhanapal
National Insurance company ltd
Adv. Padma R
Hearing History
Judge: 1-III Additional District and Sessions Judge
IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending
For further Proceedings
Appearance
Appearance
Appearance
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | IA / EA Pending / CMP Pending / CRP Pending / CMA Pending |
| 18-02-2026 | For further Proceedings |
| 21-01-2026 | Appearance |
| 18-12-2025 | Appearance |
| 03-12-2025 | Appearance |
Interim Orders
Summary In MCOP No. 140/2018 dated 11.09.2025, the Additional District and Sessions Court (Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal), Tharapuram, recorded witness testimony from a transport office junior assistant. The witness confirmed that the defendant Karthik had no valid driver's license registered at their office based on records, though he may have obtained one from another regional transport office. The court accepted the witness statement as recorded and signed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary In MCOP No. 140/2018 dated 11.09.2025, the Additional District and Sessions Court (Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal), Tharapuram, recorded witness testimony from a transport office junior assistant. The witness confirmed that the defendant Karthik had no valid driver's license registered at their office based on records, though he may have obtained one from another regional transport office. The court accepted the witness statement as recorded and signed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts