BHASKAR D vs DODDEGOWDA — 7682/2024

Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 02nd April 2026.

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

CNR: KABC020701642024

ARGUMENTS

Next Hearing

02nd April 2026

Filing Number

7663/2024

Filing Date

24-10-2024

Registration No

7682/2024

Registration Date

25-10-2024

Court

CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU

Judge

35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

Acts & Sections

U/S 166 MV Act Section MV ACT

Petitioner(s)

BHASKAR D

Adv. KRISHNA MURTHY S G

Respondent(s)

DODDEGOWDA

UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD

Hearing History

Judge: 35-SCCH -01 - CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

18-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

06-03-2026

evidence

18-02-2026

evidence

04-02-2026

evidence

22-01-2026

evidence

Interim Orders

08-04-2025
Issues
21-08-2025
Deposition
17-09-2025
Deposition
15-10-2025
Deposition
04-02-2026
Deposition
04-02-2026
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition

This document contains the cross-examination of PW2 (a medical expert witness) in motor vehicle case MVC No. 7682 of 2024 before the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, conducted on 06.03.2026. The witness, who assessed the petitioner's disability on 19.12.2025 (approximately 1.5 years after the accident on 22.06.2024), denied allegations that he lacked personal treatment knowledge, created false documents, or provided biased evidence in favor of the petitioner. Respondent 1 (R1) was exparte, so no cross-examination was conducted against that party. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

This document contains the cross-examination of PW2 (a medical expert witness) in motor vehicle case MVC No. 7682 of 2024 before the Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, conducted on 06.03.2026. The witness, who assessed the petitioner's disability on 19.12.2025 (approximately 1.5 years after the accident on 22.06.2024), denied allegations that he lacked personal treatment knowledge, created false documents, or provided biased evidence in favor of the petitioner. Respondent 1 (R1) was exparte, so no cross-examination was conducted against that party. 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