K.Nandha Gopal vs Veerakumar — 83/2022
Case under Codeofcivilprocedure Section 166(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 01st June 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNTI210005112022
Next Hearing
01st June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
491/2022
Filing Date
17-10-2022
Registration No
83/2022
Registration Date
01-12-2022
Court
Sub Court, Palladam
Judge
1-Subordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.Nandha Gopal
Adv. Eswaramoorthy P
Respondent(s)
Veerakumar
Vishnu prakash
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 23-01-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-01-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary MCOP No. 83/2022 | Date: 14.08.2025 This is a motor vehicle accident insurance claim case in Tamil involving a motor cycle accident. The witness (PW1) testified that he was solely responsible for causing the accident due to his negligence and excessive speed, that his two-wheeler's tire burst, and that he had no valid driving license at the time (expired since 17.08.2017). The court found the claimant's case lacking in documentary evidence for agricultural income claims and medical expenses (copies only, not originals), and dismissed the petition against the first defendant, directing that if compensation is needed, the second defendant should bear liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary MCOP No. 83/2022 | Date: 14.08.2025 This is a motor vehicle accident insurance claim case in Tamil involving a motor cycle accident. The witness (PW1) testified that he was solely responsible for causing the accident due to his negligence and excessive speed, that his two-wheeler's tire burst, and that he had no valid driving license at the time (expired since 17.08.2017). The court found the claimant's case lacking in documentary evidence for agricultural income claims and medical expenses (copies only, not originals), and dismissed the petition against the first defendant, directing that if compensation is needed, the second defendant should bear liability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts