Rajan vs Nabaskhan — 728/2024

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166,140. Disposed: Uncontested--Settled through Lok Adalat on 14th March 2026.

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTL010045432024

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

25-03-2024

Filing Number

1091/2024

Filing Date

26-03-2024

Registration No

728/2024

Registration Date

27-03-2024

Court

Principal District Court, Tirunelveli

Judge

2-I-Additional District Judge

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Settled through Lok Adalat

Acts & Sections

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 166,140

Petitioner(s)

Rajan

Adv. Ravisankar Gopalakishnan

Respondent(s)

Nabaskhan

Hearing History

Judge: 2-I-Additional District Judge

14-03-2026

Disposed

12-03-2026

Lok Adalat

12-02-2026

Part Heard

22-01-2026

Part Heard

27-11-2025

Enquiry

Interim Orders

22-01-2026
Copy of Deposition

This document is a witness deposition record, not a court judgment. It records the sworn testimony of witness Rajan (PW-1), age 43, in case M.C.O.P. No. 728/2024 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge in Tirunelveli on January 22, 2026. Rajan testified regarding a motor vehicle accident, asserting his vehicle was registered in his name, he possessed valid driving license and insurance, and that respondent Nabaskhan bore primary responsibility for the collision due to negligent driving. The deposition includes cross-examination responses where Rajan refuted various counterarguments raised by defendants 2 and 3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

This document is a witness deposition record, not a court judgment. It records the sworn testimony of witness Rajan (PW-1), age 43, in case M.C.O.P. No. 728/2024 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge in Tirunelveli on January 22, 2026. Rajan testified regarding a motor vehicle accident, asserting his vehicle was registered in his name, he possessed valid driving license and insurance, and that respondent Nabaskhan bore primary responsibility for the collision due to negligent driving. The deposition includes cross-examination responses where Rajan refuted various counterarguments raised by defendants 2 and 3. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

Principal District Court, Tirunelveli All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case