Sandra Ancilla D Souza vs Sundar Moily — 407/2024

Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section U/s166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 24th March 2026.

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

CNR: KAUP020019182024

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

24th March 2026

Filing Number

406/2024

Filing Date

18-04-2024

Registration No

407/2024

Registration Date

01-06-2024

Court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI

Judge

602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi

Acts & Sections

Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section U/s166

Petitioner(s)

Sandra Ancilla D Souza

Adv. Poornima K.

Respondent(s)

Sundar Moily

The Liberty General Inusrance Ltd., Mangalore

Adv. MADHUKESH RAI

Hearing History

Judge: 602-I Addl Sr Civil Judge and ACJM Udupi

11-03-2026

EVIDENCE

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

26-02-2026

EVIDENCE

20-02-2026

EVIDENCE

18-02-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

12-03-2025
Issue
19-11-2025
Deposition
14-01-2026
Deposition
20-02-2026
Deposition

Case Summary Case No: M.V.C. 407/2024 Outcome: The court examined witness testimony on 20-02-2026 regarding disability compensation awarded to the petitioner. The court found that the disability assessment was not properly calculated based on the petitioner's work capacity and circumstances. The court held that while a disability certificate was granted, the compensation amount may be reduced as the petitioner was engaged in sports activities and did not require future medical treatment. The case proceeded with examination of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No: M.V.C. 407/2024 Outcome: The court examined witness testimony on 20-02-2026 regarding disability compensation awarded to the petitioner. The court found that the disability assessment was not properly calculated based on the petitioner's work capacity and circumstances. The court held that while a disability certificate was granted, the compensation amount may be reduced as the petitioner was engaged in sports activities and did not require future medical treatment. The case proceeded with examination of evidence and cross-examination of witnesses. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case