MANASI RANJITH. NAYAK vs SARBAR KHAN — 755/2022

Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

CNR: KABC020040822022

evidence

Next Hearing

27th March 2026

Filing Number

784/2022

Filing Date

09-02-2022

Registration No

755/2022

Registration Date

09-02-2022

Court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU

Judge

39-SCCH - 18 - III ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

Acts & Sections

U/S 166 MV Act Section MV ACT

Petitioner(s)

MANASI RANJITH. NAYAK

Adv. MANJUNATH

Respondent(s)

SARBAR KHAN

HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS CO LTD.,

Hearing History

Judge: 39-SCCH - 18 - III ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

06-03-2026

evidence

05-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

24-02-2026

evidence

30-01-2026

evidence

19-01-2026

evidence

Interim Orders

06-02-2025
Deposition
09-04-2025
Deposition
12-05-2025
Deposition
21-06-2025
Issues
06-03-2026
Deposition

Case Summary Case No: MVC 755/2022 | Court: SCCH 18 | Dated: 06-03-2026 This is a motor vehicle accident compensation case (PW-2 examination). The court heard cross-examination of a plastic surgeon (expert witness for the defendant) who challenged the petitioner's medical certificate regarding disability assessment. The defendant's counsel argued the witness lacked relevant expertise, that internal injuries were absent, and questioned the disability percentage (26.82%) and treatment cost estimates (₹1,00,000-₹1,50,000) claimed in the medical report. The defendant was noted as ex-parte (unrepresented). The case was adjourned for further proceedings with no re-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No: MVC 755/2022 | Court: SCCH 18 | Dated: 06-03-2026 This is a motor vehicle accident compensation case (PW-2 examination). The court heard cross-examination of a plastic surgeon (expert witness for the defendant) who challenged the petitioner's medical certificate regarding disability assessment. The defendant's counsel argued the witness lacked relevant expertise, that internal injuries were absent, and questioned the disability percentage (26.82%) and treatment cost estimates (₹1,00,000-₹1,50,000) claimed in the medical report. The defendant was noted as ex-parte (unrepresented). The case was adjourned for further proceedings with no re-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case