SUNIL R M vs PVR CONMIX — 8095/2023

Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 12th March 2026.

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

CNR: KABC020402232023

Case disposed

Filing Number

8028/2023

Filing Date

07-12-2023

Registration No

8095/2023

Registration Date

07-12-2023

Court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU

Judge

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

Decision Date

12th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING

Acts & Sections

U/S 166 MV Act Section MV ACT

Petitioner(s)

SUNIL R M

Adv. G.K. SHIVAPRAKASH

Respondent(s)

PVR CONMIX

IFFCO TOKIO GEN INS CO. LTD

Hearing History

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

12-03-2026

Disposed

09-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

06-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

05-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

21-02-2026

evidence

Interim Orders

22-10-2024
Deposition
29-11-2024
Deposition
07-01-2025
Deposition
05-05-2025
Deposition
01-09-2025
Deposition
28-10-2025
Deposition
11-11-2025
Deposition
06-12-2025
Deposition
16-02-2026
Deposition

Summary In MVC No. 8095/2023, the court adjourned the hearing to 16-02-2026 for examination of the plaintiff's witness (PW-1) on oath. The plaintiff's counsel requested relief based on witness testimony and documentary evidence (insurance policy and Section 63 certificate under Indian Evidence Act, 2023), while the defendant's counsel opposed, contesting the admissibility of Exhibit 19 and alleging false testimony for compensation purposes. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In MVC No. 8095/2023, the court adjourned the hearing to 16-02-2026 for examination of the plaintiff's witness (PW-1) on oath. The plaintiff's counsel requested relief based on witness testimony and documentary evidence (insurance policy and Section 63 certificate under Indian Evidence Act, 2023), while the defendant's counsel opposed, contesting the admissibility of Exhibit 19 and alleging false testimony for compensation purposes. 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