HEMANTH.S vs ROHAN THAKAR — 1870/2023

Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 23rd June 2026.

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

CNR: KAMS080033322023

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

23rd June 2026

Filing Number

1844/2023

Filing Date

30-09-2023

Registration No

1870/2023

Registration Date

04-10-2023

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicle Act 1989 Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

HEMANTH.S

Adv. YOGESH.S

Respondent(s)

ROHAN THAKAR

M/S TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

Adv. K.L. SUGANDHI

Hearing History

Judge: 434-JUDGE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES

25-04-2026

EVIDENCE

04-04-2026

EVIDENCE

14-03-2026

A.D.R.

12-03-2026

A.D.R.

25-02-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

27-06-2024
Issue
05-10-2024
Issue
29-01-2025
Deposition
05-08-2025
Deposition

Case Summary: MVC.1870/2023 In this motor vehicle compensation case (MVC), petitioner Hemanth S. testified on 05.08.2025 before the Court of SC & MACT, Mysuru, presenting evidence including FIR, charge sheet, medical records, wound certificates, and hospital discharge summaries related to Cr.No.89/2023 from Mysuru South police station. The case was adjourned as cross-examination of the petitioner's witness by counsel for respondents (Rohan Thakar and Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.) was deferred at the request of respondent No.2's counsel for a future date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: MVC.1870/2023 In this motor vehicle compensation case (MVC), petitioner Hemanth S. testified on 05.08.2025 before the Court of SC & MACT, Mysuru, presenting evidence including FIR, charge sheet, medical records, wound certificates, and hospital discharge summaries related to Cr.No.89/2023 from Mysuru South police station. The case was adjourned as cross-examination of the petitioner's witness by counsel for respondents (Rohan Thakar and Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.) was deferred at the request of respondent No.2's counsel for a future date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

More from this court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case