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.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KACM200001742023
Next Hearing
26th March 2026
Filing Number
93/2023
Filing Date
03-03-2023
Registration No
93/2023
Registration Date
03-03-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR
Judge
218-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
K.R. Annappa,
Adv. Prasanna Kumar D.H.
Respondent(s)
K.C.S. Reddy.
Arunachala Logistics Pvt., Ltd., Rept. By its Tadakamalla Surendra Mohan,
The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., A.M. Aracade, Near Vidhyarthi Bhavan,
Hearing History
Judge: 218-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
SUMMONS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 29-01-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 20-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
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.
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.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts