PRAKASH B J vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Advocate - B T RUDRAMURTHY — 6914/2024
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MVACT. Status: evidence. Next hearing: 03rd July 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020598702024
Next Hearing
03rd July 2026
Filing Number
6893/2024
Filing Date
23-09-2024
Registration No
6914/2024
Registration Date
23-09-2024
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
36-SCCH - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PRAKASH B J
Adv. M.G RANGANATHA
Respondent(s)
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Advocate - B T RUDRAMURTHY
CONSTRUCTION SOLUTIONS BANGALORE PRIVATE LIMITED
Hearing History
Judge: 36-SCCH - 09 - Judge, Court of Small Causes and ACJM
evidence
evidence
evidence
HEARING
evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 08-06-2026 | evidence |
| 07-04-2026 | evidence |
| 14-03-2026 | evidence |
| 16-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 13-01-2026 | evidence |
Interim Orders
This is a motor vehicle accident compensation case (MVC 6914/2024) heard in the Small Causes Court in Bangalore on 08.06.2026. The court examined witness Dr. S.A. Somashekara regarding disability assessment of the injured petitioner Prakash B J. The respondent's counsel (B.T. Rudramurthy, representing Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and Construction Solutions Bangalore Pvt Ltd) cross-examined the witness, challenging his medical opinions on the extent of disability and suggesting he provided exaggerated testimony to benefit the claimant. The case was adjourned without final orders being pronounced in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a motor vehicle accident compensation case (MVC 6914/2024) heard in the Small Causes Court in Bangalore on 08.06.2026. The court examined witness Dr. S.A. Somashekara regarding disability assessment of the injured petitioner Prakash B J. The respondent's counsel (B.T. Rudramurthy, representing Oriental Insurance Co Ltd and Construction Solutions Bangalore Pvt Ltd) cross-examined the witness, challenging his medical opinions on the extent of disability and suggesting he provided exaggerated testimony to benefit the claimant. The case was adjourned without final orders being pronounced in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts