Pushpa(Legal Heir) vs Ganesan — 72/2024

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTR090007402024

Arguments

Next Hearing

06th June 2026

e-Filing Number

13-06-2024

Filing Number

72/2024

Filing Date

21-06-2024

Registration No

72/2024

Registration Date

11-07-2024

Court

III. Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee

Judge

2-Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

Pushpa(Legal Heir)

Adv. YUVARAJ JAYARAJ1.

Kathirvel

Adv. YUVARAJ JAYARAJ

Respondent(s)

Ganesan

Hearing History

Judge: 2-Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

18-04-2026

Arguments

12-03-2026

Arguments

20-02-2026

Orders

06-01-2026

Arguments

05-12-2025

Arguments

Interim Orders

12-03-2026
Copy of Order
12-03-2026
Copy of Order

CASE SUMMARY: MCOP No. 72/2024 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the petitioners' (Pushpa and Kathirvel, legal heirs of deceased Ganapathy) petition seeking attachment of an uninsured container lorry (TN-04-AA-6148) before judgment. The court prohibited the first respondent (P. Ganesan, vehicle owner) from selling, mortgaging, or transferring the lorry, and directed the attachment order be forwarded to the Regional Transport Office. The case involved a fatal road accident claim, where the petitioners sought to secure the vehicle as security for potential compensation recovery. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: MCOP No. 72/2024 The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the petitioners' (Pushpa and Kathirvel, legal heirs of deceased Ganapathy) petition seeking attachment of an uninsured container lorry (TN-04-AA-6148) before judgment. The court prohibited the first respondent (P. Ganesan, vehicle owner) from selling, mortgaging, or transferring the lorry, and directed the attachment order be forwarded to the Regional Transport Office. The case involved a fatal road accident claim, where the petitioners sought to secure the vehicle as security for potential compensation recovery. 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

III. Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case