KUMAR vs UDAYKUMAR ALLIAS KUMAR — 3863/2024
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 04th April 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020287512024
Next Hearing
04th April 2026
Filing Number
3841/2024
Filing Date
30-05-2024
Registration No
3863/2024
Registration Date
01-06-2024
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
39-SCCH - 18 - III ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KUMAR
Adv. K.S. KUMARA
Respondent(s)
UDAYKUMAR ALLIAS KUMAR
TATA AIG GEN INS CO LTD
Hearing History
Judge: 39-SCCH - 18 - III ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM
evidence
evidence
evidence
OBJECTIONS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | evidence |
| 19-02-2026 | evidence |
| 28-01-2026 | evidence |
| 21-01-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 17-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a Motor Vehicles Act case (MVC No. 3863/2024) from a Kannada court dated 16.09.2025, wherein the court recorded the cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW-1) who claimed compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The court found significant inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding the accident circumstances, injuries sustained, and damages claimed. The case was adjourned with no further cross-examination since the opposing party (1st defendant) and their counsel were absent, and the court noted no re-examination was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a Motor Vehicles Act case (MVC No. 3863/2024) from a Kannada court dated 16.09.2025, wherein the court recorded the cross-examination of the plaintiff (PW-1) who claimed compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident. The court found significant inconsistencies in the witness's testimony regarding the accident circumstances, injuries sustained, and damages claimed. The case was adjourned with no further cross-examination since the opposing party (1st defendant) and their counsel were absent, and the court noted no re-examination was required. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts