Mohammed Harshad vs Mahammed Suhail — 56/2025

Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/Sec.166. Status: EVIDENCE - Civil. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.

M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.

CNR: KAKD020002282025

EVIDENCE - Civil

Next Hearing

27th March 2026

e-Filing Number

15-04-2025

Filing Number

56/2025

Filing Date

15-04-2025

Registration No

56/2025

Registration Date

21-04-2025

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI

Judge

364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/Sec.166

Petitioner(s)

Mohammed Harshad

Adv. Giri A G

Respondent(s)

Mahammed Suhail

Nabeesa M M

ICICI Lombard

Hearing History

Judge: 364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE - Civil

13-02-2026

EVIDENCE - Civil

30-01-2026

EVIDENCE - Civil

17-01-2026

EVIDENCE - Civil

20-12-2025

EVIDENCE - Civil

Interim Orders

30-10-2025
Deposition
06-12-2025
Deposition
06-12-2025
Deposition
13-02-2026
Deposition

Court Order Summary Case No.: M.V.C. 56/2025 Date: 13.02.2026 Court: Senior Civil Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff filed a false/fabricated case with the intention of obtaining compensation. The court determined that the plaintiff's testimony and evidence were inconsistent and contradictory, and that the accident circumstances presented were not credible. The defendants (parties 1 and 2) are held not liable for compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Court Order Summary Case No.: M.V.C. 56/2025 Date: 13.02.2026 Court: Senior Civil Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri Outcome: The petition is dismissed. The court found that the plaintiff filed a false/fabricated case with the intention of obtaining compensation. The court determined that the plaintiff's testimony and evidence were inconsistent and contradictory, and that the accident circumstances presented were not credible. The defendants (parties 1 and 2) are held not liable for compensation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case