PRIYANKA GANGULY vs GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED — 6739/2025
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MVACT. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020358652025
Filing Number
6744/2025
Filing Date
16-Sep-2025
Registration No
6739/2025
Registration Date
16-Sep-2025
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
36-Scch - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH
Last updated 10-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.PRIYANKA GANGULY
Adv. Chirag U
Respondent(s)
-
1.GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE LIMITED
-
2.VASANTHA KUMAR
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
Orders
Case Summary: MVC 6739/2025 The National Lok-Adalath allowed petitioner Priyanka Ganguly's petition through a settlement agreement between the petitioner and respondent Go Digit General Insurance Limited. The Lok-Adalath approved a joint memo whereby the claim was settled for Rs. 2,25,000 as full and final settlement, finding the agreement lawful and not contrary to public policy. Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the agreed amount to the petitioner via e-payment upon proper identification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
Scch - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
18-Feb-2026
Summons
Scch - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
19-Jan-2026
Summons
Scch - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
18-Nov-2025
Summons
Scch - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
17-Sep-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Sep-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 6739/2025
Case Summary: MVC 6739/2025 The National Lok-Adalath allowed petitioner Priyanka Ganguly's petition through a settlement agreement between the petitioner and respondent Go Digit General Insurance Limited. The Lok-Adalath approved a joint memo whereby the claim was settled for Rs. 2,25,000 as full and final settlement, finding the agreement lawful and not contrary to public policy. Respondent No. 1 was directed to pay the agreed amount to the petitioner via e-payment upon proper identification. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts