Pushpa(Legal Heir) vs Ganesan — 72/2024

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

Arguments Next hearing 06-Jun-2026 this date has passed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTR090007402024

e-Filing Number

13-06-2024

Filing Number

72/2024

Filing Date

21-Jun-2024

Registration No

72/2024

Registration Date

11-Jul-2024

Court

III. Additional District and Sessions Court, Poonamallee

Judge

2-Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

Last updated 29-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Pushpa(Legal Heir)

    Adv. YUVARAJ JAYARAJ1.

  2. 2.Kathirvel

    Adv. YUVARAJ JAYARAJ

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Ganesan

Case History

  1. 06-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  4. 12-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    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.

  5. 12-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  6. 20-Feb-2026

    Orders

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  7. 06-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  8. 05-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  9. 05-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  10. 27-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  11. 07-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  12. 19-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  13. 18-Jul-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  14. 18-Jul-2025

    Enquiry

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  15. 25-Jun-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  16. 25-Jun-2025

    Enquiry

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  17. 16-Apr-2025

    Enquiry

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  18. 07-Mar-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  19. 07-Mar-2025

    Enquiry

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  20. 12-Feb-2025

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  21. 12-Feb-2025

    Enquiry

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  22. 21-Dec-2024

    Enquiry

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  23. 07-Dec-2024

    Counter

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  24. 03-Dec-2024

    Counter

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  25. 19-Oct-2024

    Counter

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  26. 17-Sep-2024

    Issue of Service

    Additional District and Sessions Judge - III

  27. 08-Aug-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  28. 21-Jun-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 72/2024

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.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case