V.Thangavel vs R.Rajasekar and others — 90/2020

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 18th June 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 18-Jun-2026

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTM040005492020

Filing Number

540/2020

Filing Date

30-Sep-2020

Registration No

90/2020

Registration Date

10-Oct-2020

Court

Sub Court, Cheyyar

Judge

2-Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V.Thangavel

    Adv. Selvi T.G.Selvi

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.R.Rajasekar and others

  2. 2.The Manager, TP Claims Shri Ram Gen.Ins.com.ltd., Chennai

Case History

  1. 18-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 27-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Additional Sub JudgeCheyyar

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  5. 19-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  6. 19-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  7. 02-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  8. 09-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  9. 12-Nov-2025

    Await Reports

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  10. 23-Oct-2025

    Await Reports

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  11. 08-Oct-2025

    Await Reports

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  12. 12-Sep-2025

    Await Reports

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  13. 04-Aug-2025

    Await Reports

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  14. 10-Jul-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  15. 06-Jun-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  16. 16-Apr-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: 90/2020 This case involved a motor vehicle accident claim. The petitioner V. Thangavel claimed that without proper authority from the vehicle owner, the respondents filed a case against him for damages. The petitioner argued he should not be held liable for a vehicle he did not own or authorize, and disputed the insurance company's claim procedures and documentation. The court found merit in examining whether proper authorization existed and whether correct procedures were followed in the insurance claim process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  17. 16-Apr-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  18. 02-Apr-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  19. 13-Mar-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  20. 17-Feb-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  21. 17-Feb-2025

    Part Heard

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  22. 06-Feb-2025

    Enquiry

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  23. 04-Feb-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  24. 01-Feb-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  25. 27-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  26. 20-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  27. 06-Jan-2025

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  28. 16-Dec-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  29. 18-Sep-2024

    IA / Ea Pending / Cmp Pending / CRP Pending / Cma Pending

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  30. 19-Aug-2024

    Orders

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  31. 03-Aug-2024

    Orders

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  32. 03-Jul-2024

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  33. 06-Jun-2024

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  34. 05-Apr-2024

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  35. 08-Mar-2024

    Arguments

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  36. 09-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  37. 08-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  38. 08-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  39. 12-Sep-2023

    Await Reports

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  40. 11-Jul-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  41. 12-Apr-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  42. 08-Mar-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  43. 04-Jan-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  44. 31-Oct-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  45. 27-Sep-2022

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  46. 26-Jun-2022

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  47. 06-Jun-2022

    Lok Adalat

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  48. 04-Mar-2022

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  49. 31-Jan-2022

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  50. 16-Nov-2021

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  51. 06-Sep-2021

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  52. 09-Jul-2021

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  53. 30-Apr-2021

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  54. 22-Mar-2021

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  55. 10-Feb-2021

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  56. 16-Dec-2020

    Counter

    Principal Subordinate JudgeCheyyar

  57. 09-Nov-2020

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  58. 30-Sep-2020

    Case filed

    Registration No. 90/2020

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: 90/2020 This case involved a motor vehicle accident claim. The petitioner V. Thangavel claimed that without proper authority from the vehicle owner, the respondents filed a case against him for damages. The petitioner argued he should not be held liable for a vehicle he did not own or authorize, and disputed the insurance company's claim procedures and documentation. The court found merit in examining whether proper authorization existed and whether correct procedures were followed in the insurance claim process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case