M Dhanapal vs Chelladurai — 80/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166,. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 27th April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNTU040000802025
Next Hearing
27th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
80/2025
Filing Date
29-04-2025
Registration No
80/2025
Registration Date
29-04-2025
Court
Special Sub Court to deal with MCOP cases, Tirupathur
Judge
4-Special Subordiante Judge (MACT),Thirupattur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
M Dhanapal
Adv. GUNASEKARAN K A
Respondent(s)
Chelladurai
Reliance general Insurance co.Ltd
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Special Subordiante Judge (MACT),Thirupattur
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 24-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 09-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 06-04-2026 | Evidence | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Special Bench (Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal) at Tiruppattur, in MCOP No. 80/2025 dated 06.04.2026, examined testimony regarding whether a driver's license was issued to the respondent. The court found that the Traffic Department records show "No D.L" (no driver's license) was issued to the respondent as of the date of inquiry, though the possibility exists that a license may have been obtained before 2012 or renewed without the department's knowledge. The court admitted cross-examination testimony noting that the search in computer records showed "No Search Details Found," and acknowledged potential gaps in documentation, but maintained that based on available official records, the respondent had no valid driver's license at the relevant time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Special Bench (Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal) at Tiruppattur, in MCOP No. 80/2025 dated 06.04.2026, examined testimony regarding whether a driver's license was issued to the respondent. The court found that the Traffic Department records show "No D.L" (no driver's license) was issued to the respondent as of the date of inquiry, though the possibility exists that a license may have been obtained before 2012 or renewed without the department's knowledge. The court admitted cross-examination testimony noting that the search in computer records showed "No Search Details Found," and acknowledged potential gaps in documentation, but maintained that based on available official records, the respondent had no valid driver's license at the relevant time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts