Badruddin vs Saban Saheb — 200/2025
Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section U/s166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 14th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUP020010102025
Next Hearing
14th March 2026
Filing Number
86/2025
Filing Date
10-03-2025
Registration No
200/2025
Registration Date
17-03-2025
Court
PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI
Judge
508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Badruddin
Adv. Poornima K.
Respondent(s)
Saban Saheb
The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz Company Ltd., Mangalore.
Adv. MADHUKESH RAI
Hearing History
Judge: 508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 10-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 27-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 06-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 29-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
This is a Kannada language court order from case MVC 200/2025 dated 10-02-2026. The order documents witness examination in what appears to be a motor vehicle compensation case. The court admitted case sheet evidence (NIP-20), authenticated signatures on exhibits NIP-15 and NIP-16 as NIP-15(M) and NIP-16(M). The second respondent's counsel cross-examined the petitioner regarding medical treatment received, disability assessment, and work capacity. The court found no further cross-examination and marked the case as complete ("O.H.K.S"). The order notes the petitioner received hospital treatment with proper rehabilitation and directed verification of insurance coverage details. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
This is a Kannada language court order from case MVC 200/2025 dated 10-02-2026. The order documents witness examination in what appears to be a motor vehicle compensation case. The court admitted case sheet evidence (NIP-20), authenticated signatures on exhibits NIP-15 and NIP-16 as NIP-15(M) and NIP-16(M). The second respondent's counsel cross-examined the petitioner regarding medical treatment received, disability assessment, and work capacity. The court found no further cross-examination and marked the case as complete ("O.H.K.S"). The order notes the petitioner received hospital treatment with proper rehabilitation and directed verification of insurance coverage details. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts