ASHA MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER JYOTHI vs PRAJWAL C.M. Advocate - C.APPAJI GOWDA — 852/2023

Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Status: Arguments. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

Arguments Next hearing 23-Jun-2026

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

CNR: KAMS080014552023

Filing Number

865/2023

Filing Date

30-May-2023

Registration No

852/2023

Registration Date

30-May-2023

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-Judge Court Of Small Causes

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ASHA MINOR R/BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER JYOTHI

    Adv. MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRAJWAL C.M. Advocate - C.APPAJI GOWDA

  2. 2.THE MANAGER, BAJAJ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

    Adv. Pradeep D

Case History

  1. 23-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 18-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  3. 09-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  4. 02-Jun-2026

    Arguments

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 05-May-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 27-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  9. 20-Feb-2026

    Arguments

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  10. 06-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  12. 14-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Case Summary - MVC 852/2023 This motor vehicle accident compensation case involves a 15-year-old minor (Asha) seeking damages for injuries sustained in an accident on 03.04.2023. The document records the cross-examination of Dr. N. Karunakara (PW.2), the treating physician, by counsel for Bajaj General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14.01.2026. The doctor testified regarding the petitioner's fractures, malunion, muscle strength loss (Grade I knee and hip), and assessed 20% disability for knee joint and 35% for left lower limb. The insurance company's counsel challenged whether the disability assessments were exaggerated and whether proper Form-B guidelines were followed. The doctor refuted allegations of bias, maintaining his assessments were accurate and the petitioner would retain basic daily functioning capacity with possible slight disability reduction over time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  13. 14-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  14. 29-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  15. 27-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  16. 10-Nov-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  17. 10-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  18. 24-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  19. 30-Sep-2025

    Arguments

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  20. 22-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  21. 04-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  22. 05-Aug-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  23. 22-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  24. 27-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  25. 06-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  26. 02-May-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  27. 11-Apr-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  28. 18-Mar-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  29. 21-Feb-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  30. 21-Feb-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  31. 21-Jan-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  32. 17-Dec-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  33. 17-Dec-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  34. 26-Nov-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  35. 25-Oct-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  36. 24-Sep-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  37. 23-Aug-2024

    IssueView PDF

  38. 23-Aug-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  39. 26-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  40. 05-Jul-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  41. 18-Jun-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  42. 14-May-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  43. 05-Apr-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  44. 05-Apr-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  45. 19-Mar-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  46. 23-Feb-2024

    DepositionView PDF

  47. 23-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  48. 06-Feb-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  49. 12-Jan-2024

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  50. 19-Dec-2023

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  51. 28-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  52. 10-Nov-2023

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  53. 20-Oct-2023

    IssueView PDF

  54. 20-Oct-2023

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  55. 05-Oct-2023

    Issues

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  56. 05-Sep-2023

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  57. 09-Aug-2023

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  58. 19-Jul-2023

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  59. 31-May-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  60. 30-May-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 852/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary - MVC 852/2023 This motor vehicle accident compensation case involves a 15-year-old minor (Asha) seeking damages for injuries sustained in an accident on 03.04.2023. The document records the cross-examination of Dr. N. Karunakara (PW.2), the treating physician, by counsel for Bajaj General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 14.01.2026. The doctor testified regarding the petitioner's fractures, malunion, muscle strength loss (Grade I knee and hip), and assessed 20% disability for knee joint and 35% for left lower limb. The insurance company's counsel challenged whether the disability assessments were exaggerated and whether proper Form-B guidelines were followed. The doctor refuted allegations of bias, maintaining his assessments were accurate and the petitioner would retain basic daily functioning capacity with possible slight disability reduction over time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case