HARSHITH H.R vs PUTTASWAMY P.T — 575/2024

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S 166. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.

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

CNR: KAMS080011152024

JUDGEMENT

Next Hearing

17th April 2026

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

591/2024

Filing Date

12-03-2024

Registration No

575/2024

Registration Date

13-03-2024

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

Acts & Sections

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

HARSHITH H.R

Adv. N.BASAVARAJ

Respondent(s)

PUTTASWAMY P.T

THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Hearing History

Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

27-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

12-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

07-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

26-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

20-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

28-11-2024
Issue
10-02-2025
Deposition
17-06-2025
Deposition
11-08-2025
Deposition
01-09-2025
Deposition
06-11-2025
Deposition
12-01-2026
Deposition

Summary This is a witness examination record in a Motor Vehicle Compensation (MVC) case (MVC.575/2024) before the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru. Orthopedic surgeon H.S. Manjunath Bhargava (PW.3) testified on 12.01.2026 regarding his treatment and disability assessment of the petitioner who suffered bilateral leg fractures. During cross-examination, the witness firmly refuted allegations that he exaggerated the 34% disability assessment to suit the petitioner's compensation claim, denying charges that his assessment violated guidelines or that medical records were falsified. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary This is a witness examination record in a Motor Vehicle Compensation (MVC) case (MVC.575/2024) before the Principal Judge, Court of Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru. Orthopedic surgeon H.S. Manjunath Bhargava (PW.3) testified on 12.01.2026 regarding his treatment and disability assessment of the petitioner who suffered bilateral leg fractures. During cross-examination, the witness firmly refuted allegations that he exaggerated the 34% disability assessment to suit the petitioner's compensation claim, denying charges that his assessment violated guidelines or that medical records were falsified. 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