BHASKARA.K.S vs RAVIKUMAR.P — 1894/2025

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

Case disposedSub Stage

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

CNR: KAMS080021762025

Filing Number

1894/2025

Filing Date

08-Jul-2025

Registration No

1894/2025

Registration Date

10-Jul-2025

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-Judge Court Of Small Causes

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHASKARA.K.S

    Adv. ANOOPKUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.RAVIKUMAR.P

  2. 2.THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Orders

    Case 1894/2025 Summary: The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement between petitioner Bhaskara K.S and respondents Ravikumar P and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd for ₹5,40,000. The court found the compromise voluntary and legally enforceable, with the petitioner competent to receive the full amount. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the settlement amount without unreasonable delay, considering the petitioner's medical expenses and injury severity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  4. 23-Feb-2026

    A.D.R.

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 19-Jan-2026

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 01-Dec-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 13-Oct-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 19-Jul-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 08-Jul-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1894/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 1894/2025 Summary: The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement between petitioner Bhaskara K.S and respondents Ravikumar P and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd for ₹5,40,000. The court found the compromise voluntary and legally enforceable, with the petitioner competent to receive the full amount. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the settlement amount without unreasonable delay, considering the petitioner's medical expenses and injury severity. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case