KISHAN MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER CHANDREGOWDA vs NAGESH.H.K — 1870/2022
Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S166. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 22nd April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAMS080032092022
Next Hearing
22nd April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
1862/2022
Filing Date
12-12-2022
Registration No
1870/2022
Registration Date
12-12-2022
Court
JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU
Judge
434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KISHAN MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER CHANDREGOWDA
Adv. N.BASAVARAJ
Respondent(s)
NAGESH.H.K
THE MANAGER, HDFC ERGO INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
Adv. K.L. SUGANDHI
Hearing History
Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES
ARGUMENTS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | ARGUMENTS | |
| 07-03-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 13-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 05-02-2026 | EVIDENCE | |
| 28-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary This document is a cross-examination transcript from motor vehicle accident compensation cases (MVC 1870/22 and MVC 2255/23) before the MACT Court in Mysuru, dated 08.04.2026. The witness testimony addresses whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger covered under the insurance policy, with the witness denying the petitioner's claim that he was traveling in his capacity as owner of vegetable cargo and rejecting allegations that the insurance company raised false defenses. The case appears to remain ongoing with evidence being recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This document is a cross-examination transcript from motor vehicle accident compensation cases (MVC 1870/22 and MVC 2255/23) before the MACT Court in Mysuru, dated 08.04.2026. The witness testimony addresses whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger covered under the insurance policy, with the witness denying the petitioner's claim that he was traveling in his capacity as owner of vegetable cargo and rejecting allegations that the insurance company raised false defenses. The case appears to remain ongoing with evidence being recorded. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts