KARTHIK H.U. vs HASEN BAIG — 630/2017

Case under U/s 166 of M.v.act Section 166. Status: Call On. Next hearing: 20th July 2026.

Call On Next hearing 20-Jul-2026 this date has passed

M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases

CNR: KAHS010022992017

Filing Number

630/2017

Filing Date

06-Apr-2017

Registration No

630/2017

Registration Date

06-Apr-2017

Court

PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN

Judge

1162-III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

Last updated 17-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 166 of M.v.act Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KARTHIK H.U.

    Adv. KRISHNA KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.HASEN BAIG

  2. 2.MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

Case History

  1. 20-Jul-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 11-Jun-2026

    Call On

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  3. 26-May-2026

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  4. 02-May-2026

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  5. 27-Mar-2026

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  7. 20-Jan-2026

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  8. 22-Dec-2025

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  9. 20-Nov-2025

    Restored

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  10. 20-Nov-2025

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  11. 12-Jul-2019

    Judgment

    Case Summary: Karthik H.U. v. Hasen Baig & National Insurance Co. Ltd. (630/2017) Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for ₹5,00,000 compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Key Finding: The court found insufficient evidence that the accident was caused by the respondent vehicle's rash/negligent driving. Critical evidentiary gaps included: the respondent's vehicle showed no damage despite alleged head-on collision, registration number discrepancies in police records, and the petitioner's own contributory negligence in turning right without observing oncoming traffic on a curved road. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove the accident resulted from the respondent's fault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  12. 12-Jul-2019

    Disposed

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  13. 24-Jun-2019

    Judgement

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  14. 10-Jun-2019

    Arguments

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  15. 04-Jun-2019

    Arguments

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  16. 28-May-2019

    Arguments

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  17. 20-May-2019

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  18. 08-Apr-2019

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  19. 03-Apr-2019

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  20. 01-Apr-2019

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  21. 11-Mar-2019

    First Hearing

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  22. 25-Feb-2019

    Deposition

  23. 25-Feb-2019

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  24. 28-Jan-2019

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  25. 24-Dec-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  26. 03-Dec-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  27. 13-Nov-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  28. 31-Oct-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  29. 03-Oct-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  30. 06-Sep-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  31. 09-Aug-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  32. 08-Aug-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  33. 05-Jul-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  34. 14-Jun-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  35. 10-May-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  36. 16-Apr-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  37. 05-Mar-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  38. 12-Feb-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  39. 22-Jan-2018

    Evidence.

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  40. 21-Dec-2017

    Written Statement Filed

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  41. 20-Nov-2017

    Summons

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  42. 09-Oct-2017

    Summons

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  43. 04-Sep-2017

    First Hearing

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  44. 07-Aug-2017

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  45. 07-Jun-2017

    Notice

    III Addl. District And Sessions Judge

  46. 10-Apr-2017

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  47. 06-Apr-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. 630/2017

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Karthik H.U. v. Hasen Baig & National Insurance Co. Ltd. (630/2017) Outcome: Petition dismissed. The court rejected the petitioner's claim for ₹5,00,000 compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Key Finding: The court found insufficient evidence that the accident was caused by the respondent vehicle's rash/negligent driving. Critical evidentiary gaps included: the respondent's vehicle showed no damage despite alleged head-on collision, registration number discrepancies in police records, and the petitioner's own contributory negligence in turning right without observing oncoming traffic on a curved road. The petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to prove the accident resulted from the respondent's fault. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case