AVINASH.T vs DISTRICT MANAGER, THE JUBILIANT FOOD WORKS LTD., — 976/2022
Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAMS080016522022
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
1001/2022
Filing Date
11-07-2022
Registration No
976/2022
Registration Date
11-07-2022
Court
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU
Judge
859-JUDGE ADDL SMALL CAUSES COURT MYSURU
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
AVINASH.T
Adv. H.R.K.GOWDA
Respondent(s)
DISTRICT MANAGER, THE JUBILIANT FOOD WORKS LTD.,
THE MANAGER, ICICI LOBERD MOTOR INSURANCE CO.
Hearing History
Judge: 859-JUDGE ADDL SMALL CAUSES COURT MYSURU
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 20-05-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 27-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 23-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 15-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: MVC 976/2022 Outcome: The court recorded petitioner Avinash's testimony on 19.09.2024. The petitioner testified about injuries sustained in an accident, undergoing surgical treatment including procedures on his ear and nose with plate insertion, and requiring 30 days of follow-up treatment. He claimed monthly earnings of ₹25,000 before the accident and alleged he provided false testimony to claim higher compensation. The court found the injuries were minor and the petitioner was adequately compensated. Case adjourned; cross-examination pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MVC 976/2022 Outcome: The court recorded petitioner Avinash's testimony on 19.09.2024. The petitioner testified about injuries sustained in an accident, undergoing surgical treatment including procedures on his ear and nose with plate insertion, and requiring 30 days of follow-up treatment. He claimed monthly earnings of ₹25,000 before the accident and alleged he provided false testimony to claim higher compensation. The court found the injuries were minor and the petitioner was adequately compensated. Case adjourned; cross-examination pending. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts