MANJUNATHA vs HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS CO LTD., — 5961/2024
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MVACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 17th June 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020489752024
Next Hearing
17th June 2026
Filing Number
5940/2024
Filing Date
09-08-2024
Registration No
5961/2024
Registration Date
12-08-2024
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
MANJUNATHA
Adv. V. RAJANNA
Respondent(s)
HDFC ERGO GENERAL INS CO LTD.,
SIDDAREDDY.N.S
THE MANAGER, GO DIGIT GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Hearing History
Judge: 35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
evidence
evidence
evidence
Settlement
evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 05-05-2026 | evidence |
| 22-04-2026 | evidence |
| 14-03-2026 | evidence |
| 23-02-2026 | Settlement |
| 09-02-2026 | evidence |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: MVC No. 5961/2024 In this motor vehicle claim case before the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, witness PW2 (a doctor) testified on 09.12.2025 regarding petitioner Manjunatha's injuries and treatment at Aster CMI hospital. The witness produced medical records documenting that Manjunatha underwent splenectomy (surgical spleen removal) due to severe damage, and explained the procedure's serious health consequences including increased susceptibility to infections. Respondent R1 was deleted from the case; R2 remained exparte; and R3 filed no written statement. Cross-examination was closed, and the case proceedings continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MVC No. 5961/2024 In this motor vehicle claim case before the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, witness PW2 (a doctor) testified on 09.12.2025 regarding petitioner Manjunatha's injuries and treatment at Aster CMI hospital. The witness produced medical records documenting that Manjunatha underwent splenectomy (surgical spleen removal) due to severe damage, and explained the procedure's serious health consequences including increased susceptibility to infections. Respondent R1 was deleted from the case; R2 remained exparte; and R3 filed no written statement. Cross-examination was closed, and the case proceedings continued. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts