K.R. Annappa, vs K.C.S. Reddy. — 93/2023

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section U/Sec.166. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 26th March 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 26-Mar-2026 this date has passed

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

CNR: KACM200001742023

Filing Number

93/2023

Filing Date

03-Mar-2023

Registration No

93/2023

Registration Date

03-Mar-2023

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR

Judge

218-Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

Last updated 13-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section U/Sec.166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.K.R. Annappa,

    Adv. Prasanna Kumar D.H.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.K.C.S. Reddy.

  2. 2.Arunachala Logistics Pvt., Ltd., Rept. By its Tadakamalla Surendra Mohan,

  3. 3.The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., A.M. Aracade, Near Vidhyarthi Bhavan,

Case History

  1. 26-Mar-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 09-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Arguments

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  4. 29-Jan-2026

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  5. 23-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  6. 20-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  7. 27-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  8. 18-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  9. 04-Jul-2025

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  10. 29-Apr-2025

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  11. 17-Apr-2025

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary: MVC 93/2023 PW1 Outcome: Petition Dismissed The court rejected the compensation petition filed by the claimant, finding it time-barred and procedurally defective. The petition was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without proper justification. Additionally, the court found discrepancies in the claimant's claims regarding age and damages, noting that required medical documentation (NIP-10 certificate showing 72% disability) lacked adequate supporting details, and the petition failed to meet statutory requirements for maintainability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 17-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  13. 14-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  14. 29-Nov-2024

    A.D.R.

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  15. 21-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  16. 14-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  17. 22-Aug-2024

    A.D.R.

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  18. 13-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  19. 21-Jun-2024

    A.D.R.

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  20. 30-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  21. 16-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  22. 19-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  23. 22-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  24. 24-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  25. 13-Oct-2023

    IssueView PDF

  26. 13-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  27. 15-Sep-2023

    Objections

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  28. 04-Aug-2023

    Objections

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  29. 14-Jul-2023

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  30. 16-Jun-2023

    Notice

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  31. 06-May-2023

    Summons

    Senior CIVIL Judge And JMFC, Kadur

  32. 30-Mar-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  33. 03-Mar-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 93/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MVC 93/2023 PW1 Outcome: Petition Dismissed The court rejected the compensation petition filed by the claimant, finding it time-barred and procedurally defective. The petition was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period without proper justification. Additionally, the court found discrepancies in the claimant's claims regarding age and damages, noting that required medical documentation (NIP-10 certificate showing 72% disability) lacked adequate supporting details, and the petition failed to meet statutory requirements for maintainability. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case