Palaniyammal and 3 Others vs Ms Madurai Star Road Lines — 87/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,166and182aandr/wRule3(1). Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition
CNR: TNVR010016632025
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
e-Filing Number
03-04-2025
Filing Number
390/2025
Filing Date
04-04-2025
Registration No
87/2025
Registration Date
08-04-2025
Court
Principal District Court, Srivilliputhur, Virudhunagar
Judge
10-Additional District Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Palaniyammal and 3 Others
Adv. Dineshkumar G
Lingeswari
Shanmugapriya
Nagaraj
Respondent(s)
Ms Madurai Star Road Lines
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd
The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd
Hearing History
Judge: 10-Additional District Judge
Evidence
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
Enquiry
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 06-03-2026 | Enquiry |
| 23-02-2026 | Enquiry |
| 12-02-2026 | Enquiry |
| 02-02-2026 | Enquiry |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a motor accident compensation case (MCOP No. 87/2025) from the Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur, dated 23.02.2026. The witness (plaintiff's wife) testified under cross-examination regarding a two-wheeler accident case, clarifying that her husband's income was overstated in the petition, that employment documents submitted were inaccurate, and disputing claims about compensation amounts already received under PA Coverage policy (Rs. 15 lakh). The court recorded her sworn testimony and statement, which was read back, affirmed, and signed by her before the judge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a motor accident compensation case (MCOP No. 87/2025) from the Additional District Court, Srivilliputhur, dated 23.02.2026. The witness (plaintiff's wife) testified under cross-examination regarding a two-wheeler accident case, clarifying that her husband's income was overstated in the petition, that employment documents submitted were inaccurate, and disputing claims about compensation amounts already received under PA Coverage policy (Rs. 15 lakh). The court recorded her sworn testimony and statement, which was read back, affirmed, and signed by her before the judge. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts