K.SRINIVASAN, M/S. M.P.SENTHIL, G.VENUGOPAL,MEMO FILED USR.28444 DT.14.07.2025,ADDL. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FILED USR.28446 DT.14.07.2025 vs 1.THE ORIENTAL INS.CO.LTD., — SA/1687/2003

Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 01st June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMD012858812017

Filing Number

SA/1001687/2003

Filing Date

14-Dec-2016

Registration No

SA/1687/2003

Registration Date

16-Dec-2016

Judge

Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima

Coram

Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima

Category

Suits ( 149 )

Sub-Category

Money Suits ( 14 )

Judicial Branch

Judicial Section

Decision Date

01-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED

Last updated 02-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K.SRINIVASAN, M/S. M.P.SENTHIL, G.VENUGOPAL,MEMO FILED USR.28444 DT.14.07.2025,ADDL. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FILED USR.28446 DT.14.07.2025

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.1.THE ORIENTAL INS.CO.LTD.,

    Adv. G.GANESH KUMAR ,U.SRI RUBHA ,FOR R1 SR.13669 DT.20.03.2025,M/S.MICHAEL BHARATHI,N.SASIKUMAR FOR R5, R6 & R8,COURT NOTICE ,-----------,R2 - M/S.L.P.L.LORRY AGENCIES, NO.5, MAIN ROAD, SATTUR THRO` ITS BRANCH OFFICE KOVILPATTI ,R3 - M/S.JAYAPRAKASH MATCH WORKS THROUGH ITS PARTNER, M.CHANDRASEKAR, KOVILPATTI ,R4 - DIED (STEPS TAKEN),R7 - DISPENSED WITH (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 31/01/

  2. 2.1123

  3. 3.M/S.L.P.L.LORRY AGENCIES,

  4. 4.M/S.JAYAPRAKASH MATCH WORKS

  5. 5.L.P.LAKSHMANAN, (DIED)

  6. 6.L.KARUTHAPANDIYAN

  7. 7.L.ARUMUGAM,

  8. 8.L.RAVICHANDRAN,

  9. 9.L.VIGNESWARAN

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Jun-2026

    Honourable Ms.Justice R. PoornimaView PDF

    Case Summary: SA 1687/2003 Court Decision: The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the second appeal filed by K. Srinivasan (2nd defendant) and set aside the appellate court's judgment, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the insurance company's suit. Key Finding: An Oriental Insurance Company's claim for Rs. 79,914.75 against the truck owner/carrier was dismissed because the surveyor's report and FIR clearly established the accident resulted from the negligence of the other vehicle (MWT-9293), not the appellant's vehicle (TDL-6465). Additionally, the shipper (3rd defendant) had no insurable interest in the goods at the time of loss, as risk had passed to the buyer M/s. Minesh & Co., rendering the letter of subrogation unenforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 13-Mar-2026

    Second Appeal Cases

    Honourable Ms.Justice R. Poornima

  4. 16-Jul-2025

    xxxxxxx

    Honourable Mr Justice R.vijayakumar

  5. 28-Jun-2025

    Sa Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice R.vijayakumar

  6. 24-Jun-2025

    xxxxxxx

    Honourable Mr Justice R.vijayakumar

  7. 02-Apr-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice G.ilangovan

  8. 21-Mar-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice G.ilangovan

  9. 13-Mar-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice G.ilangovan

  10. 03-Mar-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice G.ilangovan

  11. 18-Feb-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice V.sivagnanam

  12. 27-Jan-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice V.sivagnanam

  13. 06-Jan-2025

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice V.sivagnanam

  14. 12-Mar-2024

    Final Hearing Cases

    Honourable Mr.Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar

  15. 31-Oct-2023

    Notice Section Default Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice Krishnan Ramasamy

  16. 14-Dec-2016

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/1687/2003

  17. 07-Nov-2016

    —

    Honourable Ms.Justice V.m.velumani

  18. 03-Nov-2016

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: SA 1687/2003 Court Decision: The Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) allowed the second appeal filed by K. Srinivasan (2nd defendant) and set aside the appellate court's judgment, restoring the trial court's dismissal of the insurance company's suit. Key Finding: An Oriental Insurance Company's claim for Rs. 79,914.75 against the truck owner/carrier was dismissed because the surveyor's report and FIR clearly established the accident resulted from the negligence of the other vehicle (MWT-9293), not the appellant's vehicle (TDL-6465). Additionally, the shipper (3rd defendant) had no insurable interest in the goods at the time of loss, as risk had passed to the buyer M/s. Minesh & Co., rendering the letter of subrogation unenforceable. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case