C.N.HARIPRASAD vs PUNEETH.A.M — 2270/2025

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: KAMS080025042025

Filing Number

2270/2025

Filing Date

16-Aug-2025

Registration No

2270/2025

Registration Date

16-Aug-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.C.N.HARIPRASAD

    Adv. K.B.NAGESHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PUNEETH.A.M

  2. 2.THE MANAGER, SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    The Lok Adalath accepted a joint settlement between petitioner C.N. Hariprasad and respondents Puneeth A.M and Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. for ₹2,80,000. The court found the parties competent and the compromise terms legally enforceable, dismissing the petition against Respondent No.1 while directing Respondent No.2 (insurance company) to deposit the full settlement amount to the petitioner without unreasonable delay. 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. 05-Mar-2026

    A.D.R.

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 22-Jan-2026

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 29-Nov-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 03-Nov-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 23-Aug-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 16-Aug-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2270/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Lok Adalath accepted a joint settlement between petitioner C.N. Hariprasad and respondents Puneeth A.M and Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. for ₹2,80,000. The court found the parties competent and the compromise terms legally enforceable, dismissing the petition against Respondent No.1 while directing Respondent No.2 (insurance company) to deposit the full settlement amount to the petitioner without unreasonable delay. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case