Raja vs Pradeesh — 97/2022

Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 166(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTI210006262022

Evidence

Next Hearing

27th March 2026

Filing Number

606/2022

Filing Date

01-12-2022

Registration No

97/2022

Registration Date

05-12-2022

Court

Sub Court, Palladam

Judge

1-Subordinate Judge

Acts & Sections

Code of Civil Procedure Section 166(1)

Petitioner(s)

Raja

Adv. Balakumar A

Respondent(s)

Pradeesh

Saravanan Jayaprakasham

The Manager, Iffco Tokio General insurance company limited.,

Hearing History

Judge: 1-Subordinate Judge

05-03-2026

Evidence

19-02-2026

Evidence

10-12-2025

Evidence

03-12-2025

Evidence

20-11-2025

Evidence

Interim Orders

21-07-2025
Copy of Deposition

Summary: This is a Motor Claim Objection Petition (MCOP.No. 97/2022) dated 21.07.2025 in which witness Raja (PW1) testified and was cross-examined by the third respondent's counsel. The witness testified on oath that he was a wage laborer, denied being fully injured in the accident, and stated that the third respondent lacked a valid driving license and was legally a minor, thus only the first and second respondents are liable for the accident. The witness's statement was recorded directly on computer, read back to him, confirmed as accurate, and signed by him before the presiding judge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This is a Motor Claim Objection Petition (MCOP.No. 97/2022) dated 21.07.2025 in which witness Raja (PW1) testified and was cross-examined by the third respondent's counsel. The witness testified on oath that he was a wage laborer, denied being fully injured in the accident, and stated that the third respondent lacked a valid driving license and was legally a minor, thus only the first and second respondents are liable for the accident. The witness's statement was recorded directly on computer, read back to him, confirmed as accurate, and signed by him before the presiding judge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Sub Court, Palladam All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case