RENUKA vs BHASKAR — 2488/2025

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: KAMS080027452025

e-Filing Number

23-08-2025

Filing Number

2488/2025

Filing Date

11-Sep-2025

Registration No

2488/2025

Registration Date

11-Sep-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.RENUKA

    Adv. H R MAHADEVA PRABHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.BHASKAR

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

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrdersView PDF

    Case 2488/2025 Summary The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement between petitioner Renuka and respondents Bhaskar and Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd for ₹4,60,000. The court found the compromise voluntary, legally enforceable, and appropriate given the petitioner's medical expenses and injury nature. Respondent No.2 (insurance company) was directed to deposit the full amount 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. 25-Feb-2026

    A.D.R.

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 30-Jan-2026

    Settlement

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  6. 27-Nov-2025

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 22-Sep-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 11-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2488/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Case 2488/2025 Summary The Lok Adalath accepted a settlement between petitioner Renuka and respondents Bhaskar and Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd for ₹4,60,000. The court found the compromise voluntary, legally enforceable, and appropriate given the petitioner's medical expenses and injury nature. Respondent No.2 (insurance company) was directed to deposit the full amount 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