Eswaran and one another vs Ramachandran and 2 Others — 64/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,141,142,163A,163B,166,182A. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNVR010000352020
Next Hearing
02nd April 2026
Filing Number
34/2020
Filing Date
06-01-2020
Registration No
64/2021
Registration Date
29-04-2021
Court
Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
Judge
10-Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Eswaran and one another
Adv. Thiru.S.Sathiyamoorthy
Saraswathy
Adv. S.Sathyamoorthy
Respondent(s)
Ramachandran and 2 Others
Pandimuniyandi
Branch Manager,Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Additional District Judge
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 03-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 17-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 09-02-2026 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a cross-examination testimony in motor vehicle accident case MCOP No. 64/2021 dated 17.02.2026 from Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur (Tamil Nadu). The witness (brother of the deceased) testified that his brother died in an accident involving an auto-rickshaw (vehicle TN 84 B 1922) driven by Pandimuniyandi, and that his brother fell from the vehicle onto the roadside. The witness contends that the auto driver violated traffic rules by allowing a passenger to sit near the driver's seat, and claims the 3rd respondent (insurance company) should pay compensation; however, he also acknowledged his brother was not listed as a legal heir, raising questions about his claim eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a cross-examination testimony in motor vehicle accident case MCOP No. 64/2021 dated 17.02.2026 from Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur (Tamil Nadu). The witness (brother of the deceased) testified that his brother died in an accident involving an auto-rickshaw (vehicle TN 84 B 1922) driven by Pandimuniyandi, and that his brother fell from the vehicle onto the roadside. The witness contends that the auto driver violated traffic rules by allowing a passenger to sit near the driver's seat, and claims the 3rd respondent (insurance company) should pay compensation; however, he also acknowledged his brother was not listed as a legal heir, raising questions about his claim eligibility. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts