Muruganantham vs Vimalkumar — 36/2022

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--CLOSED on 13th June 2026.

Case disposed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTV020009822022

Filing Number

49/2022

Filing Date

19-Sep-2022

Registration No

36/2022

Registration Date

19-Sep-2022

Court

Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvarur

Judge

2-Chief Judicial Magistrate

Decision Date

13-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--CLOSED

Last updated 16-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Muruganantham

    Adv. THIRU. N. VINAYAKAMOORTHY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Vimalkumar

  2. 2.Nagarajan

  3. 3.The Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company Ltd., Thanjavur.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 13-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    The court rejected the petitioner Muruganantham's claims, finding that respondents Vimalkumar, Nagarajan, and Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company properly handled the case. The court noted that no tests were conducted to verify certain allegations, and witness testimony presented during cross-examination was not accepted by the court as credible evidence supporting the petitioner's position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 12-Jun-2026

    Lok Adalat

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  5. 03-Jun-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  6. 03-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  7. 26-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  8. 26-May-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  9. 08-May-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  10. 04-May-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  11. 04-May-2026

    Appearance

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  12. 04-May-2026

    Restored

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  13. 04-May-2026

    Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  14. 06-Nov-2024

    Disposed

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  15. 05-Nov-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  16. 05-Nov-2024

    Orders

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  17. 24-Sep-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  18. 03-Sep-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  19. 20-Aug-2024

    Await Reports

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  20. 03-Aug-2024

    Await Reports

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  21. 16-Jul-2024

    Await Reports

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  22. 09-Jul-2024

    Await Reports

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  23. 20-Jun-2024

    Await Reports

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  24. 13-Jun-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  25. 12-Apr-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  26. 23-Feb-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  27. 23-Jan-2024

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  28. 29-Dec-2023

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  29. 11-Dec-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  30. 20-Nov-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  31. 10-Oct-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  32. 14-Aug-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  33. 21-Jun-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  34. 20-Apr-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  35. 03-Mar-2023

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  36. 02-Feb-2023

    Batta

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  37. 23-Dec-2022

    Batta

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  38. 17-Nov-2022

    Batta

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  39. 10-Oct-2022

    Counter

    Chief Judicial Magistrate

  40. 22-Sep-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  41. 19-Sep-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 36/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The court rejected the petitioner Muruganantham's claims, finding that respondents Vimalkumar, Nagarajan, and Cholamandalam MS Insurance Company properly handled the case. The court noted that no tests were conducted to verify certain allegations, and witness testimony presented during cross-examination was not accepted by the court as credible evidence supporting the petitioner's position. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case