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

EVIDENCE - Civil

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

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section 166(1)b

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.

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

21-03-2025
Deposition
30-01-2026
Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM MADIKERI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case