Babitha vs Nithin Devaiah M T Advocate - Kavan. K. S. — 67/2025
Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/Sec.166. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 17th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAKD020002772025
Next Hearing
17th March 2026
e-Filing Number
02-05-2025
Filing Number
60/2025
Filing Date
09-05-2025
Registration No
67/2025
Registration Date
09-05-2025
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI
Judge
364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Babitha
Adv. Shridhar B K
Respondent(s)
Nithin Devaiah M T Advocate - Kavan. K. S.
M M Thammaiah
The New India Assurance Company Ltd
Hearing History
Judge: 364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
EVIDENCE - Civil
EVIDENCE - Civil
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 10-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 06-03-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 27-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 13-02-2026 | EVIDENCE - Civil |
| 06-02-2026 | EVIDENCE - Civil |
Interim Orders
Deposition
The witness testimony in this motor vehicle accident case (MVC No. 67/2025) was recorded on 06.02.2026. The witness testified about injuries sustained in a hit-and-run accident, claiming the responsible vehicle could not be identified and later falsely reporting vehicle number MEQ9573, while also admitting to fabricating medical bills and providing false evidence to obtain compensation. The court found the witness's testimony to be dishonest and unreliable, noting contradictions in the account and fraudulent documentation presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The witness testimony in this motor vehicle accident case (MVC No. 67/2025) was recorded on 06.02.2026. The witness testified about injuries sustained in a hit-and-run accident, claiming the responsible vehicle could not be identified and later falsely reporting vehicle number MEQ9573, while also admitting to fabricating medical bills and providing false evidence to obtain compensation. The court found the witness's testimony to be dishonest and unreliable, noting contradictions in the account and fraudulent documentation presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts