Sri. Govindappa. vs Sri. Kirankumar. — 173/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section SEC.166. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 09th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KACM200003362022
Next Hearing
09th April 2026
Filing Number
173/2022
Filing Date
11-05-2022
Registration No
173/2022
Registration Date
11-05-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR
Judge
218-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sri. Govindappa.
Adv. H. THIPPESH
Sri. Kenchappa.
Respondent(s)
Sri. Kirankumar.
Sri. Vasu. K.Y.
Sri. Ravi.
M/s. The United India Ins. Co. Ltd., Birur.
Hearing History
Judge: 218-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KADUR
SUMMONS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | SUMMONS |
| 22-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 20-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 13-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary The court dismissed an application (I.A. No. II) filed by United India Insurance Company seeking to implead M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company as a necessary party to a motor vehicle accident compensation petition. The court found insufficient documentary evidence to support the insurance company's contention that the financier had taken possession of the vehicle before the accident, noting that the registered owner remained the 2nd respondent on the accident date. The court extended liberty to parties to file a fresh application if supported by documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The court dismissed an application (I.A. No. II) filed by United India Insurance Company seeking to implead M/s Shriram Transport Finance Company as a necessary party to a motor vehicle accident compensation petition. The court found insufficient documentary evidence to support the insurance company's contention that the financier had taken possession of the vehicle before the accident, noting that the registered owner remained the 2nd respondent on the accident date. The court extended liberty to parties to file a fresh application if supported by documentary evidence. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts