AMAL BHASKAR vs MAHESHA Advocate - A.G.SUDHEER — 227/2023

Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.

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

CNR: KAMS080003362023

Case disposedSub Stage

Filing Number

182/2023

Filing Date

03-02-2023

Registration No

227/2023

Registration Date

03-02-2023

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

AMAL BHASKAR

Adv. B.SOMANAYAKA

Respondent(s)

MAHESHA Advocate - A.G.SUDHEER

S. RAJESWARI

Adv. A.G.SUDHEER

THE MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Adv. K.L. SUGANDHI

Hearing History

Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

A.D.R.

10-03-2026

SETTLEMENT

13-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

20-01-2026

ARGUMENTS

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
Orders

The Lok Adalath accepted a joint settlement memo between petitioner Amal Bhaskar and respondents (advocates and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.) for ₹8,50,000. The court found the parties competent and terms legally enforceable, dismissing the petition against respondents 1 and 2, while directing respondent 3 (the insurance company) to deposit the full amount to the petitioner without unreasonable delay, considering the medical expenses and injuries involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

13-09-2023
Issue
07-02-2024
Deposition
22-04-2024
Deposition
09-07-2024
Deposition
15-10-2024
Deposition
18-01-2025
Deposition
10-03-2025
Deposition
16-06-2025
Deposition
27-11-2025
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

The Lok Adalath accepted a joint settlement memo between petitioner Amal Bhaskar and respondents (advocates and IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.) for ₹8,50,000. The court found the parties competent and terms legally enforceable, dismissing the petition against respondents 1 and 2, while directing respondent 3 (the insurance company) to deposit the full amount to the petitioner without unreasonable delay, considering the medical expenses and injuries involved. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case