SIDDESH.B.R vs THE HEAD MISTRESS, SHRI KALABHIARAVESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST(R) Advocate - B.M.MARAPPA — 191/2024
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 18th July 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAMS080004152024
Filing Number
208/2024
Filing Date
23-Jan-2024
Registration No
191/2024
Registration Date
25-Jan-2024
Court
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU
Judge
434-Judge Court Of Small Causes
Last updated 19-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.SIDDESH.B.R
Adv. M.NAGESH
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE HEAD MISTRESS, SHRI KALABHIARAVESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST(R) Advocate - B.M.MARAPPA
-
2.THE MANAGER, THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Adv. JAGANATH SURESH KUMAR
Case History
-
18-Jul-2026
Next hearingPending
-
18-Jun-2026
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
25-May-2026
Orders
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
17-Apr-2026
Call On
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
18-Mar-2026
DepositionView PDF
Case Summary: MVC 191/2024 This is a motor vehicle compensation case before the MACT in Mysuru involving petitioner Siddesh B.R. The document records the testimony of PW.2 (Ravikumar H.S.), an orthopedic surgeon from DRM Hospital, who examined the petitioner. The witness testified that the petitioner sustained fractures requiring implants and assessed a 45% disability for the left lower limb, estimating Rs.50,000-60,000 for implant removal surgery. During cross-examination, the insurance company's counsel challenged the disability assessment, alleging the report pertained to another person (Sri Yathish), lacked proper testing protocols, and contained exaggerated percentages to inflate compensation claims. The witness denied these allegations but conceded not conducting nerve conduction tests, not reviewing prior OPD records, and not specifying mobility/stability test details. No final order or verdict is provided in this document—it records only the witness examination proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
18-Mar-2026
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
17-Mar-2026
Summons
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
06-Mar-2026
Summons
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
07-Feb-2026
Summons
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
02-Feb-2026
Summons
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
17-Dec-2025
Summons
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
06-Nov-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
06-Oct-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
06-Oct-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
20-Sep-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
19-Aug-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
19-Aug-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
12-Jul-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
28-Jun-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
27-May-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
17-Apr-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
11-Mar-2025
DepositionView PDF
-
11-Mar-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
29-Jan-2025
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
19-Dec-2024
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
11-Nov-2024
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
03-Oct-2024
IssueView PDF
-
03-Oct-2024
Evidence
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
24-Aug-2024
Objections
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
25-Jul-2024
Objections
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
28-Jun-2024
Objections
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
30-May-2024
Objections
Judge Court Of Small Causes
-
29-Jan-2024
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
23-Jan-2024
Case filed
Registration No. 191/2024
Case Summary: MVC 191/2024 This is a motor vehicle compensation case before the MACT in Mysuru involving petitioner Siddesh B.R. The document records the testimony of PW.2 (Ravikumar H.S.), an orthopedic surgeon from DRM Hospital, who examined the petitioner. The witness testified that the petitioner sustained fractures requiring implants and assessed a 45% disability for the left lower limb, estimating Rs.50,000-60,000 for implant removal surgery. During cross-examination, the insurance company's counsel challenged the disability assessment, alleging the report pertained to another person (Sri Yathish), lacked proper testing protocols, and contained exaggerated percentages to inflate compensation claims. The witness denied these allegations but conceded not conducting nerve conduction tests, not reviewing prior OPD records, and not specifying mobility/stability test details. No final order or verdict is provided in this document—it records only the witness examination proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts