Mahadev W/o Sadashiv Jagadale,Age 64 years,Occ Nil vs Syed Dastagir S/o Sayyad Hassan Sab Age 50 years,Occ Business — 1767/2023
Case under Sec151 Cpc Section 166. Status: FIRST HEARING. Next hearing: 06th June 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAKB210005592023
Next Hearing
06th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1762/2023
Filing Date
29-11-2023
Registration No
1767/2023
Registration Date
15-12-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ALAND
Judge
681-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALAND
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Mahadev W/o Sadashiv Jagadale,Age 64 years,Occ Nil
Adv. Sri.Nagesh Reddy Advocate
Datta S/o Sunil Jadhav Age 10 years,Occ Student,
Laxmi D/o Sunil Jadhav Age 9 years,Occ Student,
Respondent(s)
Syed Dastagir S/o Sayyad Hassan Sab Age 50 years,Occ Business
The Manager, SBI General Insurance Co.,Ltd.,
Hearing History
Judge: 681-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ALAND
FIRST HEARING
FIRST HEARING
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 04-04-2026 | FIRST HEARING | |
| 07-03-2026 | FIRST HEARING | |
| 30-01-2026 | EVIDENCE. | |
| 17-01-2026 | EVIDENCE. | |
| 25-11-2025 | EVIDENCE. |
Interim Orders
Summary: In Motor Vehicle Compensation case MVC No. 1767/2023 heard on 17.01.2026, the court examined claims arising from an auto-rickshaw accident. The petitioner's affidavit claiming compensation was accepted and the court called for witness examination. However, the respondent (auto driver) challenged the petitioner's claims regarding lost income of Rs. 24,000/month and other damages as unsubstantiated, and the court found no sufficient basis for the compensation claim. The counterobjection was dismissed as no sufficient grounds were found. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In Motor Vehicle Compensation case MVC No. 1767/2023 heard on 17.01.2026, the court examined claims arising from an auto-rickshaw accident. The petitioner's affidavit claiming compensation was accepted and the court called for witness examination. However, the respondent (auto driver) challenged the petitioner's claims regarding lost income of Rs. 24,000/month and other damages as unsubstantiated, and the court found no sufficient basis for the compensation claim. The counterobjection was dismissed as no sufficient grounds were found. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts