PRABHU vs MURALIDHAR.B Advocate - NAVEENA — 1044/2022

Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.

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

CNR: KAMS080017252022

Case disposed

Filing Number

1040/2022

Filing Date

16-07-2022

Registration No

1044/2022

Registration Date

16-07-2022

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

PRABHU

Adv. B. RAMEGOWDA

Respondent(s)

MURALIDHAR.B Advocate - NAVEENA

THE MANAGER, CHOLAMANDALAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Adv. B.G. KUMAR

Hearing History

Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

14-03-2026

Disposed

06-03-2026

ARGUMENTS

16-02-2026

SUMMONS

13-01-2026

SUMMONS

06-01-2026

SUMMONS

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
Orders

Case Summary: Prabhu v. Muralidhar.B & Cholamandalam General Insurance (1044/2022) The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement agreement between petitioner Prabhu and respondent Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. for ₹5,70,000. The court approved release of the entire compensation amount to the petitioner, considering the medical expenses incurred, nature of injuries suffered, and petitioner's capability to handle the funds. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the amount without unreasonable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Interim Orders

24-03-2023
Issue
18-04-2023
Deposition
08-08-2023
Deposition
21-11-2023
Deposition
05-10-2023
Deposition
06-01-2025
Deposition
31-01-2025
Deposition
14-11-2025
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition
casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Prabhu v. Muralidhar.B & Cholamandalam General Insurance (1044/2022) The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement agreement between petitioner Prabhu and respondent Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. for ₹5,70,000. The court approved release of the entire compensation amount to the petitioner, considering the medical expenses incurred, nature of injuries suffered, and petitioner's capability to handle the funds. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the amount without unreasonable delay. 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