Dhanamma Shasappa Talwar vs Malikarjuna — 700/2020
Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section 166. Status: ARGUMENTS. Next hearing: 01st April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUP020010642020
Next Hearing
01st April 2026
Filing Number
701/2020
Filing Date
10-09-2020
Registration No
700/2020
Registration Date
10-09-2020
Court
PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI
Judge
508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dhanamma Shasappa Talwar
Adv. PADMANABHA S
Kashibhai Shashappa Talawar-Rep.by her mother and Natural Guardian Dhanamma Shasappa Talwar
Samarth Shyasappa Talawar-Rep. by his mother and Natural Guardian Dhanamma Shasappa Talwar
Chandravva
Respondent(s)
Malikarjuna
Rajendrappa
United India Insurance Company Ltd., Udupi
Adv. DINESH B.SHETTY
Sangappa Siddappa Biradar
Adv. LEELAVATHI
Hearing History
Judge: 508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS
HEARING
HEARING
HEARING
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 06-03-2026 | ARGUMENTS |
| 16-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 22-01-2026 | HEARING |
| 17-12-2025 | HEARING |
Interim Orders
Case Summary Case No.: M.V.C - 700/2020 | Date: 19-12-2024 On 19-12-2024, witness examination was conducted in this motor vehicle insurance claim case. The defendant (insurance company) argued it is not liable for compensation as the applicant violated regulations; the company contended there was no connection between the insured tractor involved in the accident and the insurance policy documents presented. The court examined evidence including B Register Extract (marked as exhibit NIPI-11) and cross-examination was completed with no re-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary Case No.: M.V.C - 700/2020 | Date: 19-12-2024 On 19-12-2024, witness examination was conducted in this motor vehicle insurance claim case. The defendant (insurance company) argued it is not liable for compensation as the applicant violated regulations; the company contended there was no connection between the insured tractor involved in the accident and the insurance policy documents presented. The court examined evidence including B Register Extract (marked as exhibit NIPI-11) and cross-examination was completed with no re-examination ordered. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts