Sandeep S/o Harishchandra Age-19yrs Occ-Labour Now nil R/o Malgatti vs Ennem Vasudeva Reddy S/o Ennem Pedda Venkat Reddy Age-Majoor Occ-Owner of Lorry R/o Anjeneya Swamy — 204/2024
Case under Under Section 166 of M.v. Act 1988 Section 166. Status: ARGUMENTS-CIVIL. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAKB510001162024
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
187/2024
Filing Date
08-02-2024
Registration No
204/2024
Registration Date
20-02-2024
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITAPUR
Judge
951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sandeep S/o Harishchandra Age-19yrs Occ-Labour Now nil R/o Malgatti
Adv. Sri, B.D.MAKA advocate
Respondent(s)
Ennem Vasudeva Reddy S/o Ennem Pedda Venkat Reddy Age-Majoor Occ-Owner of Lorry R/o Anjeneya Swamy
Through its Manager Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd Deshpande Nagar.
Hearing History
Judge: 951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
EVIDENCE-CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
| 12-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
| 23-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
| 22-01-2026 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
| 23-12-2025 | EVIDENCE-CIVIL |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No: MVC 204/2024 | Date: 23-01-2026 The court examined a motor vehicle accident case involving a truck collision. The witness testified that the truck had valid insurance, fitness, and permit at the time of the accident. The opposing counsel argued the witness testimony was false and that the final investigation report found no fault with the bike driver. The court found contradictions in the witness's statements regarding vehicle documentation and fault determination, noting issues with the credibility of the affidavit evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No: MVC 204/2024 | Date: 23-01-2026 The court examined a motor vehicle accident case involving a truck collision. The witness testified that the truck had valid insurance, fitness, and permit at the time of the accident. The opposing counsel argued the witness testimony was false and that the final investigation report found no fault with the bike driver. The court found contradictions in the witness's statements regarding vehicle documentation and fault determination, noting issues with the credibility of the affidavit evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts