A. A. Ramaraj vs Smt. Ashwini M. P. — 139/2024
Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section 166(1)b. Status: EVIDENCE - Civil. Next hearing: 27th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAKD020005392024
Next Hearing
27th March 2026
Filing Number
139/2024
Filing Date
24-10-2024
Registration No
139/2024
Registration Date
25-10-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI
Judge
364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
A. A. Ramaraj
Adv. Ranju K. K.
Respondent(s)
Smt. Ashwini M. P.
Branch Manager,
Branch Manager
Hearing History
Judge: 364-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI.
EVIDENCE - Civil
EVIDENCE - Civil
DEFENDANT EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE - Civil
EVIDENCE - Civil
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE - Civil |
| 27-02-2026 | EVIDENCE - Civil |
| 20-02-2026 | DEFENDANT EVIDENCE |
| 06-02-2026 | EVIDENCE - Civil |
| 30-01-2026 | EVIDENCE - Civil |
Interim Orders
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim additional compensation from the second defendant insurance company, as the insurance company had already paid ₹48,500 as compensation for vehicle damage caused by the accident of 28.12.2023. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims of false documentation and false evidence, noting that the actual repair costs were ₹82,000, of which the insurance paid ₹48,500, leaving a shortfall that the plaintiff sought to recover. The case was disposed with the finding that the plaintiff had no valid grounds for further compensation beyond what was already received from the insurance company. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim additional compensation from the second defendant insurance company, as the insurance company had already paid ₹48,500 as compensation for vehicle damage caused by the accident of 28.12.2023. The court rejected the plaintiff's claims of false documentation and false evidence, noting that the actual repair costs were ₹82,000, of which the insurance paid ₹48,500, leaving a shortfall that the plaintiff sought to recover. The case was disposed with the finding that the plaintiff had no valid grounds for further compensation beyond what was already received from the insurance company. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts