Saravanan vs Anish P.K — 701/2023

Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section 166. Status: JUDGEMENT. Next hearing: 17th March 2026.

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

CNR: KAUP020027592023

JUDGEMENT

Next Hearing

17th March 2026

Filing Number

701/2023

Filing Date

18-07-2023

Registration No

701/2023

Registration Date

07-08-2023

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 166

Petitioner(s)

Saravanan

Adv. SANJAY K NILAVAR

Respondent(s)

Anish P.K

Sunil John D Souza

Adv. PRADEEP P.J.

United India Insurnace Company Limited, Udupi

Adv. A. PRITHVIRAJ HEGDE

Hearing History

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

06-03-2026

JUDGEMENT

27-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

21-02-2026

JUDGEMENT

17-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

12-02-2026

ARGUMENTS

Interim Orders

22-05-2024
Orders
09-07-2024
Issue
21-11-2024
Deposition
19-02-2025
Deposition
15-07-2025
Deposition
12-12-2025
Deposition

Summary In Motor Vehicles Case (MVC) 701/2023, the court examined witness testimony regarding disability assessment and medical treatment provided at KMC Hospital. The court found that the petitioner's disability claim was not substantiated as alleged and rejected the request for enhanced compensation, noting the evidence did not support the degree of permanent disability claimed. The court directed that no further relief beyond what has been established could be granted, and the case was concluded based on the evidence presented. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary In Motor Vehicles Case (MVC) 701/2023, the court examined witness testimony regarding disability assessment and medical treatment provided at KMC Hospital. The court found that the petitioner's disability claim was not substantiated as alleged and rejected the request for enhanced compensation, noting the evidence did not support the degree of permanent disability claimed. The court directed that no further relief beyond what has been established could be granted, and the case was concluded based on the evidence presented. 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