Vaduvammal vs Rajendran — 55/2024

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 1639A) 54. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNTV140003042024

Evidence

Next Hearing

11th June 2026

e-Filing Number

22-10-2024

Filing Number

225/2024

Filing Date

28-10-2024

Registration No

55/2024

Registration Date

05-11-2024

Court

SubCourt, Thiruthuraipoondi

Judge

4-Subordinate Judge

Acts & Sections

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 166 1639A) 54

Petitioner(s)

Vaduvammal

Adv. Mohamed Umarhattapu G

Subramaniyan

Adv. Mohamed Umarhattapu G

Respondent(s)

Rajendran

Hearing History

Judge: 4-Subordinate Judge

29-04-2026

Evidence

17-04-2026

Amendment

30-03-2026

Amendment

25-03-2026

Amendment

12-03-2026

Amendment

Interim Orders

01-04-2025
Deposition
17-04-2025
Deposition
24-04-2025
Deposition
24-04-2025
Deposition
24-04-2025
Deposition

Summary: This is a motor accident compensation case (MCOP.55/2024) heard by the Subordinate Court at Thiruthuraipoondi on 24.04.2025. The second petitioner (father of the deceased) testified that his son died in a road accident, claiming Rs. 20 lakhs compensation from the respondents (vehicle owner and driver). The court found that the deceased son was negligent and primarily responsible for the accident by crossing the road carelessly, and rejected the petitioner's claims regarding the respondent driver's license and vehicle insurance compliance. The petition is dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This is a motor accident compensation case (MCOP.55/2024) heard by the Subordinate Court at Thiruthuraipoondi on 24.04.2025. The second petitioner (father of the deceased) testified that his son died in a road accident, claiming Rs. 20 lakhs compensation from the respondents (vehicle owner and driver). The court found that the deceased son was negligent and primarily responsible for the accident by crossing the road carelessly, and rejected the petitioner's claims regarding the respondent driver's license and vehicle insurance compliance. The petition is dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

SubCourt, Thiruthuraipoondi All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case