SANTHOSH ALIAS SANGAPPA MANNERI vs UNIVERSAL SAMPO GEN INS CO LTD — 8627/2024
Case under U/s 166 Mv Act Section MV ACT. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING on 11th March 2026.
M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
CNR: KABC020770752024
Filing Number
8613/2024
Filing Date
02-Dec-2024
Registration No
8627/2024
Registration Date
02-Dec-2024
Court
CHIEF JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU
Judge
39-Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
Decision Date
11-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED / GRANTED AFTER FULL HEARING
Last updated 20-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SANTHOSH ALIAS SANGAPPA MANNERI
Adv. GIRIMALLAIAH
Respondent(s)
-
1.UNIVERSAL SAMPO GEN INS CO LTD
-
2.DHANARAJU T S
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-Mar-2026
Disposed
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
09-Mar-2026
Judgement
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
06-Mar-2026
Arguments
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
05-Mar-2026
Arguments
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
23-Feb-2026
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
29-Jan-2026
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
08-Jan-2026
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
29-Dec-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
03-Dec-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
25-Nov-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
12-Nov-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
10-Nov-2025
Arguments
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
05-Nov-2025
Arguments
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
25-Oct-2025
DepositionView PDF
Summary This Motor Vehicle Accident case (MVC No. 8627/2024) involves a collision between a two-wheeler (bearing registration KA-43-R-7558) and a tractor (KA-06-TC-7399/7400) that occurred at 8:30 AM. The court recorded witness testimony stating that the petitioner was riding slowly on the left side of the road when the tractor driver negligently collided with the two-wheeler from the right side, contrary to claims that the petitioner was at fault. The witness affirmed that assistance was provided to the injured petitioner and relevant statements were given to police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
25-Oct-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
08-Oct-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
08-Sep-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
08-Sep-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
14-Aug-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
19-Jul-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
23-Jun-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
23-Jun-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
07-May-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
07-Apr-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
04-Mar-2025
Summons
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
03-Feb-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
13-Jan-2025
evidence
Scch - 18 - III Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes and Acjm
-
03-Dec-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Dec-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 8627/2024
Summary This Motor Vehicle Accident case (MVC No. 8627/2024) involves a collision between a two-wheeler (bearing registration KA-43-R-7558) and a tractor (KA-06-TC-7399/7400) that occurred at 8:30 AM. The court recorded witness testimony stating that the petitioner was riding slowly on the left side of the road when the tractor driver negligently collided with the two-wheeler from the right side, contrary to claims that the petitioner was at fault. The witness affirmed that assistance was provided to the injured petitioner and relevant statements were given to police. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts