Savita S.Shedageri D/o Shantaram B.Ager @ Savita W/o Shankarling Kolekar vs The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Reginal Office, Dharwad — 406/2023
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Amendment.. Next hearing: 23rd March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUK720010732023
Next Hearing
23rd March 2026
Filing Number
39/2023
Filing Date
22-09-2023
Registration No
406/2023
Registration Date
11-10-2023
Court
PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KUMTA
Judge
904-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUMTA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Savita S.Shedageri D/o Shantaram B.Ager @ Savita W/o Shankarling Kolekar
Adv. JANARDHAN PANDURANGA NAIK
Respondent(s)
The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. Reginal Office, Dharwad
Shaikh Moinoudin D Khairati S/o Dadahayath
The Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd
Hearing History
Judge: 904-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUMTA
Amendment.
Amendment.
ORDERS
ORDERS
ORDERS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 11-03-2026 | Amendment. |
| 09-03-2026 | Amendment. |
| 06-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 04-03-2026 | ORDERS |
| 02-03-2026 | ORDERS |
Interim Orders
Summary: The court allowed the petitioner's application to amend her motor vehicle compensation petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The petitioner had mistakenly mentioned she was traveling in KSRTC Bus No. KA-42/F-799 when she was actually in Bus No. KA-25/F-3016 during the 2019 accident. The court found the amendment necessary for adjudication, treating the discrepancy as a typographical error supported by police documents, and adopted a liberal approach to serve justice without prejudice to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The court allowed the petitioner's application to amend her motor vehicle compensation petition under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The petitioner had mistakenly mentioned she was traveling in KSRTC Bus No. KA-42/F-799 when she was actually in Bus No. KA-25/F-3016 during the 2019 accident. The court found the amendment necessary for adjudication, treating the discrepancy as a typographical error supported by police documents, and adopted a liberal approach to serve justice without prejudice to the respondent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts