Sivasakthi and 4 others vs Mani and 4 others — 390/2022

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166,140. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 24th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 24-Jun-2026

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTS010012152022

Filing Number

764/2022

Filing Date

17-Oct-2022

Registration No

390/2022

Registration Date

11-Nov-2022

Court

Principal District Court, Tenkasi

Judge

2-Additional District Session Judge

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166,140

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sivasakthi and 4 others

    Adv. Tr.K.Eskkidurai

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Mani and 4 others

  2. 2.Mariappan

  3. 3.IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance company ltd

    Adv. Tr.A.Nagarajan

  4. 4.Vairamuthu

  5. 5.The New India Assurance company ltd

Case History

  1. 24-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  3. 11-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  4. 10-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  5. 08-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  6. 30-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  7. 04-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  8. 05-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  9. 18-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  10. 30-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  11. 14-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  12. 31-Jul-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: MCOP 390/2022 Court: Additional District Judge, Tenkasi Date: 31.07.2024 The court permitted a witness (M.S.2) to be recalled and cross-examined. The petitioners' claims were substantiated: the accident involved vehicle TN-28-AJ-4781, the 2nd respondent is the bus owner of vehicle AR-1J-6999, and the bus is insured with the 3rd respondent (IFFCO TOKIO). The court affirmed that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, and the petition should proceed accordingly. Cross-examination was disallowed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 31-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  14. 12-Jun-2024

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  15. 17-Apr-2024

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  16. 20-Mar-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  17. 20-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  18. 28-Feb-2024

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  19. 28-Feb-2024

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  20. 31-Jan-2024

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  21. 20-Dec-2023

    Copy of DepositionView PDF

  22. 20-Dec-2023

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  23. 08-Nov-2023

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  24. 27-Sep-2023

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  25. 16-Aug-2023

    Enquiry

    Additional District Session Judge

  26. 19-Jul-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Additional District Session Judge

  27. 14-Jun-2023

    Counter

    Additional District Session Judge

  28. 29-Mar-2023

    Counter

    Additional District Session Judge

  29. 25-Jan-2023

    Counter

    Additional District Session Judge

  30. 11-Nov-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 17-Oct-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 390/2022

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCOP 390/2022 Court: Additional District Judge, Tenkasi Date: 31.07.2024 The court permitted a witness (M.S.2) to be recalled and cross-examined. The petitioners' claims were substantiated: the accident involved vehicle TN-28-AJ-4781, the 2nd respondent is the bus owner of vehicle AR-1J-6999, and the bus is insured with the 3rd respondent (IFFCO TOKIO). The court affirmed that the 3rd respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners, and the petition should proceed accordingly. Cross-examination was disallowed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case