DODDAIAH vs MUHAMMED NASAL.P — 1534/2025

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

Case disposed

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

CNR: KAMS080019942025

Filing Number

1534/2025

Filing Date

03-Jun-2025

Registration No

1534/2025

Registration Date

04-Jun-2025

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

859-Judge Addl Small Causes Court Mysuru

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Last updated 10-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DODDAIAH

    Adv. Shivaramu AS

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MUHAMMED NASAL.P

  2. 2.THE MANAGING PARTNER, NAVAS T

  3. 3.SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case Summary The National Lok Adalath allowed the petition and approved a settlement between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for Rs. 6,65,000, to be paid within 2 months with 6% interest if delayed. The entire amount is to be released to the petitioner given their substantial medical expenses, while claims against respondents 1 and 2 were dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge Addl Small Causes Court Mysuru

  4. 07-Mar-2026

    Notice

    Judge Addl Small Causes Court Mysuru

  5. 22-Dec-2025

    Notice

    Judge Addl Small Causes Court Mysuru

  6. 27-Oct-2025

    Notice

    Judge Addl Small Causes Court Mysuru

  7. 30-Jun-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 03-Jun-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1534/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The National Lok Adalath allowed the petition and approved a settlement between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 for Rs. 6,65,000, to be paid within 2 months with 6% interest if delayed. The entire amount is to be released to the petitioner given their substantial medical expenses, while claims against respondents 1 and 2 were dismissed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case