Prakash S/o Digambar Bhosle Age 40yrs Occ Security Gaurd r/o biyabani vs Naresh S/o sidram Age 36 yrs Occ owner of Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-32 EN- — 889/2023
Case under Under Section 166 of M.v. Act 1988 Section 166. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAKB510004142023
Next Hearing
16th April 2026
Filing Number
917/2023
Filing Date
28-06-2023
Registration No
889/2023
Registration Date
14-07-2023
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHITAPUR
Judge
951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Prakash S/o Digambar Bhosle Age 40yrs Occ Security Gaurd r/o biyabani
Adv. Sri, V S Reddy Advocate
Respondent(s)
Naresh S/o sidram Age 36 yrs Occ owner of Motor Cycle bearing No. KA-32 EN-
The Manager Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd Regional Office 1st Floor V.A. Kalaburag
Hearing History
Judge: 951-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, Chittapur
JUDGEMENT
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
ARGUMENTS-CIVIL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
| 12-02-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
| 23-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
| 22-01-2026 | ARGUMENTS-CIVIL |
Interim Orders
Summary: In MVC No. 889/2023, the court examined a motor vehicle accident claim where the petitioner's motorcycle was hit from behind by vehicle KA-32-IN-0570. The court found that the accident occurred on the left side of the road, and the respondent vehicle's owner failed to prove that insurance conditions were violated or that the petitioner was responsible. The court dismissed the petitioner's arguments regarding liability and compensation, ruling that the respondent cannot be held liable for compensation due to insufficient evidence of the petitioner's claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: In MVC No. 889/2023, the court examined a motor vehicle accident claim where the petitioner's motorcycle was hit from behind by vehicle KA-32-IN-0570. The court found that the accident occurred on the left side of the road, and the respondent vehicle's owner failed to prove that insurance conditions were violated or that the petitioner was responsible. The court dismissed the petitioner's arguments regarding liability and compensation, ruling that the respondent cannot be held liable for compensation due to insufficient evidence of the petitioner's claim. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts