SANJAYA KUMAR G S vs HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS CO LTD., Advocate - GEETHA RAJ — 3160/2024
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MVACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020207202024
Next Hearing
15th June 2026
Filing Number
3140/2024
Filing Date
30-04-2024
Registration No
3160/2024
Registration Date
02-05-2024
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SANJAYA KUMAR G S
Adv. ADINARAYAN
Respondent(s)
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS CO LTD., Advocate - GEETHA RAJ
CHETHAN M S
Adv. JYOTHI
Hearing History
Judge: 35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
evidence
evidence
evidence
evidence
evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 21-04-2026 | evidence |
| 14-03-2026 | evidence |
| 20-02-2026 | evidence |
| 04-02-2026 | evidence |
| 07-01-2026 | evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary - MVC No. 3160/2024 On 22.04.2025, the witness (PW1) for petitioner Sanjaya Kumar G S underwent cross-examination by HDFC ERGO's advocate regarding insurance claim documentation. Key discrepancies emerged: the witness could not produce OPD slips from Manipal Hospital (08.02.2024), lacked doctor prescriptions for claimed medicines (Bonista PF OS worth Rs.5,700), and submitted incomplete travel documentation without signatures. The second respondent's advocate remained absent, resulting in nil cross-examination. The case continues in the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary - MVC No. 3160/2024 On 22.04.2025, the witness (PW1) for petitioner Sanjaya Kumar G S underwent cross-examination by HDFC ERGO's advocate regarding insurance claim documentation. Key discrepancies emerged: the witness could not produce OPD slips from Manipal Hospital (08.02.2024), lacked doctor prescriptions for claimed medicines (Bonista PF OS worth Rs.5,700), and submitted incomplete travel documentation without signatures. The second respondent's advocate remained absent, resulting in nil cross-examination. The case continues in the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts