ARAVIND KUMAR.N vs M.SHWETHA — 2375/2023

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.

Evidence Next hearing 25-Jun-2026

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

CNR: KAMS080043142023

Filing Number

2361/2023

Filing Date

12-Dec-2023

Registration No

2375/2023

Registration Date

12-Dec-2023

Court

JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MYSURU

Judge

434-Judge Court Of Small Causes

Last updated 19-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section U/S 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.ARAVIND KUMAR.N

    Adv. K.S.RAJAGOPAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.M.SHWETHA

  2. 2.THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

    Adv. JAGANATH SURESH KUMAR

Case History

  1. 25-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Jun-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  3. 21-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  4. 18-Apr-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  5. 17-Mar-2026

    DepositionView PDF

    Summary of MVC 2375/2023: This is a Motor Vehicles Act compensation case heard in the Court of Principal Judge, Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru. The document records the testimony of Dr. Kiran Kumar G.N. (PW.3), a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, who was cross-examined regarding disability assessments he conducted for petitioner Aravind Kumar. During cross-examination, the doctor admitted significant gaps in his medical documentation and methodology, including failure to conduct nerve conduction tests, refer patients to a Neurophysician, specify physiotherapy advice, detail testing parameters for disability assessment, or provide cost estimates for claimed future surgeries. Respondent No.1 (M. Shwetha) adopted the cross-examination arguments. No final order or judgment was issued in this document—it records only the witness examination proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 17-Mar-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  7. 23-Feb-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  8. 28-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  9. 07-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  10. 07-Jan-2026

    DepositionView PDF

  11. 07-Jan-2026

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  12. 16-Dec-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  13. 16-Dec-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  14. 18-Nov-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  15. 15-Oct-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  16. 10-Sep-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  17. 29-Jul-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  18. 29-Jul-2025

    DepositionView PDF

  19. 29-Jul-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  20. 19-Jun-2025

    IssueView PDF

  21. 19-Jun-2025

    Evidence

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  22. 29-Apr-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  23. 19-Mar-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  24. 29-Jan-2025

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  25. 04-Dec-2024

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  26. 21-Oct-2024

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  27. 09-Sep-2024

    Notice

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  28. 03-Aug-2024

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  29. 15-Jul-2024

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  30. 20-Jun-2024

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  31. 27-Apr-2024

    Objections

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  32. 30-Mar-2024

    Summons

    Judge Court Of Small Causes

  33. 14-Dec-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  34. 12-Dec-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 2375/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of MVC 2375/2023: This is a Motor Vehicles Act compensation case heard in the Court of Principal Judge, Small Causes and MACT, Mysuru. The document records the testimony of Dr. Kiran Kumar G.N. (PW.3), a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon, who was cross-examined regarding disability assessments he conducted for petitioner Aravind Kumar. During cross-examination, the doctor admitted significant gaps in his medical documentation and methodology, including failure to conduct nerve conduction tests, refer patients to a Neurophysician, specify physiotherapy advice, detail testing parameters for disability assessment, or provide cost estimates for claimed future surgeries. Respondent No.1 (M. Shwetha) adopted the cross-examination arguments. No final order or judgment was issued in this document—it records only the witness examination proceedings. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case