H R CHANCHALA vs MADHUSUDHAN K — 65/2024

Case under Under Order 96 Rw Order 41 Rule 1 of the Cpc. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 07th July 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 07-Jul-2026

M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.

CNR: KABR400003922024

Filing Number

65/2024

Filing Date

14-Aug-2024

Registration No

65/2024

Registration Date

17-Aug-2024

Court

IV ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, SITTING AT DODBALLAPUR

Judge

981-IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

Last updated 18-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Under Order 96 Rw Order 41 Rule 1 of the Cpc

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.H R CHANCHALA

    Adv. M KRISHNA MURTHY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MADHUSUDHAN K

  2. 2.MOHANA. S.

  3. 3.IDDCO- TOKIO GENRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Case History

  1. 07-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: M.V.C No. 65/2024 On 16.06.2026, witness PW-1 (petitioner H R Chanchala) testified regarding a motor vehicle collision damage claim. The witness contested the respondent insurance company's liability, arguing the compound wall damage was due to the vehicle getting stuck in drainage, not deliberate impact. The witness challenged the civil engineer's damage estimate of ₹1,34,890, claiming insufficient documentation for material costs and labor charges. The court found the petitioner failed to substantiate claims with supporting documents, concluding the third respondent (insurance company) is not liable to pay the claimed compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  4. 03-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  5. 28-Apr-2026

    Arguments

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  6. 07-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Call on

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  8. 24-Feb-2026

    Call on

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  9. 10-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  10. 20-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  11. 20-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  12. 17-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  13. 02-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  14. 18-Nov-2025

    Orders

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  15. 15-Nov-2025

    Hearing

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  16. 24-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  17. 03-Sep-2025

    Hearing

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  18. 13-Aug-2025

    Objection

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  19. 23-Jul-2025

    Objection

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  20. 04-Jul-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  21. 21-May-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  22. 03-Apr-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  23. 05-Mar-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  24. 17-Feb-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  25. 09-Jan-2025

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  26. 13-Dec-2024

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  27. 06-Dec-2024

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  28. 22-Nov-2024

    Steps

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  29. 08-Nov-2024

    Objection

    IV Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  30. 13-Sep-2024

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  31. 14-Aug-2024

    Case filed

    Registration No. 65/2024

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: M.V.C No. 65/2024 On 16.06.2026, witness PW-1 (petitioner H R Chanchala) testified regarding a motor vehicle collision damage claim. The witness contested the respondent insurance company's liability, arguing the compound wall damage was due to the vehicle getting stuck in drainage, not deliberate impact. The witness challenged the civil engineer's damage estimate of ₹1,34,890, claiming insufficient documentation for material costs and labor charges. The court found the petitioner failed to substantiate claims with supporting documents, concluding the third respondent (insurance company) is not liable to pay the claimed compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case