BHIMEGOWDA vs SANAULLA Advocate - K.R.NAGARAJA — 6340/2023

Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MVACT. Status: ORDERS. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.

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

CNR: KABC020293172023

ORDERS

Next Hearing

26th March 2026

Filing Number

6272/2023

Filing Date

25-09-2023

Registration No

6340/2023

Registration Date

25-09-2023

Court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU

Judge

38-SCCH - 13 - II ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

Acts & Sections

U/S 166 MV Act Section MVACT

Petitioner(s)

BHIMEGOWDA

Adv. MANJUNATH N

Respondent(s)

SANAULLA Advocate - K.R.NAGARAJA

UNIVERSAL SAMPO GEN INS CO LTD

Adv. MADHU KIRAN

Hearing History

Judge: 38-SCCH - 13 - II ADDL. Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM

10-03-2026

ORDERS

09-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

06-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

25-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

18-02-2026

evidence

Interim Orders

10-09-2024
Issues
16-07-2025
Exhibits
01-08-2025
Deposition
25-11-2025
Exhibits
08-01-2026
Deposition

Summary: This document records the cross-examination and re-examination testimony of witness PW-2 (a medical professional) in Motor Vehicle Case MVC 6340/2023 before the II Additional Judge on 08.01.2026. The witness testified regarding the petitioner's hip fracture treatment, disability assessment (45% lower limb disability), medical expenses (Rs. 60,000), and follow-up records, denying suggestions that the testimony was false or fabricated to assist the petitioner. No final order or ruling is provided in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This document records the cross-examination and re-examination testimony of witness PW-2 (a medical professional) in Motor Vehicle Case MVC 6340/2023 before the II Additional Judge on 08.01.2026. The witness testified regarding the petitioner's hip fracture treatment, disability assessment (45% lower limb disability), medical expenses (Rs. 60,000), and follow-up records, denying suggestions that the testimony was false or fabricated to assist the petitioner. No final order or ruling is provided in this excerpt. 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