Saroja and four person vs Ravi and one person — 208/2020

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 3(1). Status: Counter. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.

Counter Next hearing 05-Jun-2026 this date has passed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTJ190004782025

Filing Number

443/2025

Filing Date

19-Nov-2020

Registration No

208/2020

Registration Date

27-Nov-2020

Court

Additional CJM Court, Kumbakonam

Judge

3-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

Last updated 19-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 3(1)

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Saroja and four person

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ravi and one person

  2. 2.Moorthy

  3. 3.Reliance General Insurance Co., Ltd. Rep by Manager, Bangalore

  4. 4.Arul

  5. 5.Manjula

  6. 6.Ananthi

Case History

  1. 05-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 29-Apr-2026

    Counter

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  3. 28-Apr-2026

    Counter

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  5. 17-Apr-2026

    Judgement

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  6. 08-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  7. 06-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  8. 27-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  9. 23-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  10. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  11. 04-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  12. 20-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  13. 12-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  14. 03-Feb-2026

    Part Heard

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  15. 27-Jan-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

    This document is a deposition of witness (not a court order with a judgment/decision) recorded on 27.01.2025 in MCOP No. 208/2020 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The witness, a farmer, testified about an incident dated 11.09.2018 involving a vehicle accident, providing details about locations, directions, and his presence at the scene. The witness's statement was recorded under oath, read back to him in open court, and acknowledged as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  16. 27-Jan-2026

    Part Heard

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  17. 22-Jan-2026

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  18. 22-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  19. 19-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  20. 18-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  21. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  22. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  23. 27-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  24. 21-Nov-2025

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  25. 21-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  26. 18-Nov-2025

    Deposition of WitnessView PDF

  27. 18-Nov-2025

    Part Heard

    Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam

  28. 06-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 19-Nov-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 208/2020

casestatus.in Summary

This document is a deposition of witness (not a court order with a judgment/decision) recorded on 27.01.2025 in MCOP No. 208/2020 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The witness, a farmer, testified about an incident dated 11.09.2018 involving a vehicle accident, providing details about locations, directions, and his presence at the scene. The witness's statement was recorded under oath, read back to him in open court, and acknowledged as correct. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case