Shivalinga @ Shivalingaiah vs Shivakumar R N — 439/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act 1989. Status: A.D.R.. Next hearing: 11th July 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KARN210015132022
Next Hearing
11th July 2026
Filing Number
439/2022
Filing Date
29-11-2022
Registration No
439/2022
Registration Date
29-11-2022
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA
Judge
1564-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Shivalinga @ Shivalingaiah
Adv. M.K.NINGAPPA
Respondent(s)
Shivakumar R N
The Manager, Bajaj allianz general insurance Co. Ltd.,
Hearing History
Judge: 1564-ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
A.D.R.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE.
Settelment
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 04-06-2026 | A.D.R. |
| 19-05-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 16-04-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 14-03-2026 | EVIDENCE. |
| 09-03-2026 | Settelment |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: MVC 439/2022 This motor vehicle accident compensation case involves petitioner Shivalinga against respondents Shivakumar R N and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. On 16.04.2026, the court examined the petitioner's witness (PW-1) who testified about a vehicle accident where the petitioner suffered a bone fracture requiring surgical treatment and 15 days hospitalization. The witness testimony revealed inconsistencies regarding accident details, supporting documents, and medical expenses (claimed at 3 lakhs). The court adjourned the case for further examination, noting that no supporting documents were produced regarding the accident, treatment, or expenses despite being referenced in testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MVC 439/2022 This motor vehicle accident compensation case involves petitioner Shivalinga against respondents Shivakumar R N and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. On 16.04.2026, the court examined the petitioner's witness (PW-1) who testified about a vehicle accident where the petitioner suffered a bone fracture requiring surgical treatment and 15 days hospitalization. The witness testimony revealed inconsistencies regarding accident details, supporting documents, and medical expenses (claimed at 3 lakhs). The court adjourned the case for further examination, noting that no supporting documents were produced regarding the accident, treatment, or expenses despite being referenced in testimony. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts