SHIVAKUMARA C. vs PUTTASWAMY Advocate - K.N. NAGARAJU — 354/2022
Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 12th June 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAMS080005922022
Next Hearing
12th June 2026
Filing Number
356/2022
Filing Date
08-03-2022
Registration No
354/2022
Registration Date
08-03-2022
Court
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU
Judge
434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
SHIVAKUMARA C.
Adv. THIMMAIAH
Respondent(s)
PUTTASWAMY Advocate - K.N. NAGARAJU
NANJAPPA
Adv. K.N. NAGARAJU
THE MANAGER, UNIVERSAL SOMPU GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Hearing History
Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
OBJECTIONS
A.D.R.
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 22-05-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 05-05-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 04-04-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-03-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 14-03-2026 | A.D.R. |
Interim Orders
In MVC No. 354/2022, the Court recorded testimony from a Senior Manager of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.3) regarding an insured motorcycle (KA-09-ES-9920) involved in an accident during the policy period (15.07.2021 to 14.07.2022). During cross-examination, the witness confirmed the policy was active at accident time but acknowledged the company did not verify the rider's valid driving license with RTO, though the charge sheet invoked section 181 of MV Act against the rider. The document records the witness examination and cross-examination proceedings; no final order dismissing or allowing the petition is stated in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
In MVC No. 354/2022, the Court recorded testimony from a Senior Manager of Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No.3) regarding an insured motorcycle (KA-09-ES-9920) involved in an accident during the policy period (15.07.2021 to 14.07.2022). During cross-examination, the witness confirmed the policy was active at accident time but acknowledged the company did not verify the rider's valid driving license with RTO, though the charge sheet invoked section 181 of MV Act against the rider. The document records the witness examination and cross-examination proceedings; no final order dismissing or allowing the petition is stated in this excerpt. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts