Kaushik V. Poojary vs Macha jayaram Advocate - Dinesh C Nayak — 517/2024

Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section U/s166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.

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

CNR: KAUP020030652024

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

06th April 2026

Filing Number

517/2024

Filing Date

24-05-2024

Registration No

517/2024

Registration Date

02-07-2024

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)

Kaushik V. Poojary

Adv. SANKAPPA A.

Respondent(s)

Macha jayaram Advocate - Dinesh C Nayak

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,Udupi.

Adv. DINESH B.SHETTY

Hearing History

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

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

26-02-2026

EVIDENCE

02-02-2026

EVIDENCE

17-01-2026

EVIDENCE

10-12-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

13-02-2025
Issue
08-09-2025
Deposition
10-12-2025
Deposition
26-02-2026
Deposition

Summary: In MVC 517/2024, the court examined evidence regarding medical treatment provided to the petitioner, including case records, X-rays, and treatment certificates dated 26-02-2026. The court found that the petitioner's treatment has been completed, with fractures properly healed and no disability resulting from the treatment. The court concluded that removal of an implant is not medically necessary and is at the petitioner's discretion, and dismissed the petition accordingly. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In MVC 517/2024, the court examined evidence regarding medical treatment provided to the petitioner, including case records, X-rays, and treatment certificates dated 26-02-2026. The court found that the petitioner's treatment has been completed, with fractures properly healed and no disability resulting from the treatment. The court concluded that removal of an implant is not medically necessary and is at the petitioner's discretion, and dismissed the petition accordingly. 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