DHATRI PRIYE, MINOR R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER MADAPPAN vs BINDUKIRAN.M.R Advocate - Preetham MRRama Rao MV. CCL. — 388/2022

Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 19th June 2026.

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

CNR: KAMS080006652022

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

19th June 2026

Filing Number

393/2022

Filing Date

16-03-2022

Registration No

388/2022

Registration Date

16-03-2022

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

DHATRI PRIYE, MINOR R/BY NATURAL GUARDIAN FATHER MADAPPAN

Adv. Shivaramu AS

Respondent(s)

BINDUKIRAN.M.R Advocate - Preetham MRRama Rao MV. CCL.

PRIYANKA

Adv. Preetham MRRama Rao MV. CCL.

THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Adv. A.J. SUBRAMANYA SHARMA

CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Hearing History

Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

22-05-2026

EVIDENCE

04-04-2026

EVIDENCE

14-03-2026

A.D.R.

11-02-2026

A.D.R.

08-01-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

07-12-2022
Issue
26-02-2024
Deposition
08-01-2026
Issue
11-02-2026
Deposition

Case Summary: MVC 388/2022 In this motor vehicle compensation case before the Court of Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru, witness PW.1 (Madappan, natural guardian of minor petitioner Dhatri Priye) was examined-in-chief on 11.02.2026, with notarized Aadhaar cards of both the minor and guardian marked as exhibits. The petitioner prayed for compensation award. Cross-examination by respondents' counsel was deferred and scheduled for a subsequent hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MVC 388/2022 In this motor vehicle compensation case before the Court of Small Causes & MACT, Mysuru, witness PW.1 (Madappan, natural guardian of minor petitioner Dhatri Priye) was examined-in-chief on 11.02.2026, with notarized Aadhaar cards of both the minor and guardian marked as exhibits. The petitioner prayed for compensation award. Cross-examination by respondents' counsel was deferred and scheduled for a subsequent hearing. 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