PANDURANGA A K vs MAHESH T M — 762/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S166. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.

Case disposedSub Stage

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

CNR: KAMS080009632025

e-Filing Number

15-03-2025

Filing Number

762/2025

Filing Date

17-Mar-2025

Registration No

762/2025

Registration Date

17-Mar-2025

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-Judge Court Of Small Causes

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PANDURANGA A K

    Adv. H R MAHADEVA PRABHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MAHESH T M

  2. 2.TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement between petitioner Panduranga A K and respondents Mahesh T M and Tata AIG General Insurance Company for ₹5,80,000. The court found the compromise voluntary and legally enforceable, and directed Respondent No.2 to deposit the full amount without delay, considering the petitioner's medical expenses and injuries. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  4. 04-Mar-2026

    A.D.R.

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 05-Jan-2026

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 12-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 10-Sep-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 09-Jul-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  9. 27-May-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  10. 20-Mar-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  11. 17-Mar-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 762/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement between petitioner Panduranga A K and respondents Mahesh T M and Tata AIG General Insurance Company for ₹5,80,000. The court found the compromise voluntary and legally enforceable, and directed Respondent No.2 to deposit the full amount without delay, considering the petitioner's medical expenses and injuries. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case