VIJAYARANGAN vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR — 180/2019
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 27th March 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNTU040005082019
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
300/2019
Filing Date
30-04-2019
Registration No
180/2019
Registration Date
12-06-2019
Court
Special Sub Court to deal with MCOP cases, Tirupathur
Judge
4-Special Subordiante Judge (MACT),Thirupattur
Decision Date
27th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
VIJAYARANGAN
Adv. UDAYAKUMAR K
Respondent(s)
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Special Subordiante Judge (MACT),Thirupattur
Disposed
Arguments
Arguments
Arguments
Evidence
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 27-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 18-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 12-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 10-03-2026 | Arguments | |
| 02-03-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's claim for ₹50 lakh compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, finding that while the accident on 29.11.2014 causing grievous injuries (Grade II compound fracture) was established, the offending vehicle with fake registration number TN 30 B 6679 could not be identified, making it impossible to fasten liability on any specific tortfeasor. The tribunal held the State and the insurer (of petitioner's own vehicle) not liable but permitted the petitioner to pursue benefits under his policy's Personal Accident cover and apply under the Hit and Run Compensation Scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's claim for ₹50 lakh compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, finding that while the accident on 29.11.2014 causing grievous injuries (Grade II compound fracture) was established, the offending vehicle with fake registration number TN 30 B 6679 could not be identified, making it impossible to fasten liability on any specific tortfeasor. The tribunal held the State and the insurer (of petitioner's own vehicle) not liable but permitted the petitioner to pursue benefits under his policy's Personal Accident cover and apply under the Hit and Run Compensation Scheme. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts