Palavesamuthu vs Samuthira pandi and 1 another — 200407/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNTS040003232021
Next Hearing
26th March 2026
Filing Number
200407/2021
Filing Date
16-07-2021
Registration No
200407/2021
Registration Date
16-07-2021
Court
Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi
Judge
5-Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Palavesamuthu
Adv. Tr.S.Dinesh, M.A.,B.L.,
Respondent(s)
Samuthira pandi and 1 another
United India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager
Hearing History
Judge: 5-Additional Sub-ordinate Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 21-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 11-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 26-11-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
This document is a witness deposition record (not a final court order) in a motor vehicle accident case (MCOP.407/2021) before the Additional Subordinate Judge in Tenkasi. The witness, an assistant manager, testified on 05.03.2026 regarding a two-wheeler accident, providing evidence that the 1st respondent's negligent and reckless driving caused the collision and injuries to the petitioner. The cross-examination reflects disputes over liability, insurance coverage, and whether the petitioner (as a third party) should receive compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This document is a witness deposition record (not a final court order) in a motor vehicle accident case (MCOP.407/2021) before the Additional Subordinate Judge in Tenkasi. The witness, an assistant manager, testified on 05.03.2026 regarding a two-wheeler accident, providing evidence that the 1st respondent's negligent and reckless driving caused the collision and injuries to the petitioner. The cross-examination reflects disputes over liability, insurance coverage, and whether the petitioner (as a third party) should receive compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts