V Saraswathi vs K Murugesan Advocate - Ex party — 30/2021

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,142,166. Disposed: Uncontested--Transfer Cases to Other Court on 03rd June 2026.

Case disposed

MCOP - Motor Accidents Claim Original Petition

CNR: TNVR130000182021

Filing Number

21/2021

Filing Date

11-Jan-2021

Registration No

30/2021

Registration Date

05-Mar-2021

Court

Subordinate court,Aruppukottai

Judge

1-Sub Judge

Decision Date

03-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--Transfer Cases to Other Court

Last updated 20-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 140,142,166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.V Saraswathi

    Adv. V PONNUSAMY

  2. 2.V. Veeramani

    Adv. V PONNUSAMY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K Murugesan Advocate - Ex party

  2. 2.The Manager, IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

    Adv. ExParty

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 03-Jun-2026

    Disposed

    Sub Judge

  3. 30-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  4. 17-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  5. 30-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  7. 11-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  8. 26-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  9. 13-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  10. 23-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  11. 22-Jan-2026

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  12. 18-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  13. 17-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  14. 12-Dec-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  15. 21-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  16. 07-Nov-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  17. 24-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  18. 17-Oct-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  19. 19-Sep-2025

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

    Case Summary: MCOP No. 30/2021 This motor vehicle insurance dispute involved testimony from an IFFCO TOKIO insurance official regarding coverage for a two-wheeler accident (TN 65 L 1960) where the owner was K. Murugesan but the driver was Eswaran, who died in the accident. The insurance company's witness testified that "PA Owner Cum Driver" coverage applies only when the owner and driver are the same person, and that passenger personal accident coverage does not provide unlimited liability. The witness also clarified that mandatory third-party insurance covers the vehicle owner and driver, not additional compensation beyond what Motor Vehicles Act Section 147 requires. The court recorded the witness's testimony as admitted evidence, accepting the insurance company's position on policy coverage limitations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  20. 19-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Sub Judge

  21. 22-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  22. 11-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  23. 04-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  24. 13-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  25. 21-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  26. 14-Feb-2025

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  27. 14-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  28. 03-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  29. 08-Nov-2024

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  30. 08-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  31. 06-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  32. 19-Jul-2024

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  33. 19-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  34. 14-Jun-2024

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  35. 14-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  36. 26-Apr-2024

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  37. 22-Mar-2024

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  38. 22-Mar-2024

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  39. 09-Feb-2024

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  40. 08-Dec-2023

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  41. 20-Oct-2023

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  42. 25-Aug-2023

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  43. 21-Jul-2023

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  44. 21-Apr-2023

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  45. 27-Jan-2023

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  46. 28-Oct-2022

    Enquiry

    Sub Judge

  47. 03-Sep-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  48. 26-Aug-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  49. 15-Jul-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  50. 24-Jun-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  51. 08-Apr-2022

    Evidence

    Sub Judge

  52. 11-Mar-2022

    Copy of Deposition/EvidenceView PDF

  53. 11-Mar-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  54. 21-Jan-2022

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  55. 01-Dec-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  56. 01-Oct-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  57. 13-Aug-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  58. 09-Jul-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  59. 04-Jun-2021

    Ex-Parte Evidence

    Sub Judge

  60. 09-Apr-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  61. 11-Jan-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 30/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MCOP No. 30/2021 This motor vehicle insurance dispute involved testimony from an IFFCO TOKIO insurance official regarding coverage for a two-wheeler accident (TN 65 L 1960) where the owner was K. Murugesan but the driver was Eswaran, who died in the accident. The insurance company's witness testified that "PA Owner Cum Driver" coverage applies only when the owner and driver are the same person, and that passenger personal accident coverage does not provide unlimited liability. The witness also clarified that mandatory third-party insurance covers the vehicle owner and driver, not additional compensation beyond what Motor Vehicles Act Section 147 requires. The court recorded the witness's testimony as admitted evidence, accepting the insurance company's position on policy coverage limitations. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case