Jayalaxmi Nagesh Kamath vs Rudragouda Tippanagouda — 723/2024
Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section U/s166. Status: HEARING. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUP020039022024
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
723/2024
Filing Date
25-07-2024
Registration No
723/2024
Registration Date
19-08-2024
Court
PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI
Judge
508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayalaxmi Nagesh Kamath
Adv. SANKAPPA A.
Mayoori Kamath
Abhiram Kamath
Respondent(s)
Rudragouda Tippanagouda
The Divisional Manager, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Mangalore
Hearing History
Judge: 508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
HEARING
HEARING
OBJECTIONS
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING |
| 10-02-2026 | HEARING |
| 30-01-2026 | OBJECTIONS |
| 13-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 26-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary Case No.: M.V.C 723/2024 | Date: 30-01-2026 The witness (PW-01) testified regarding a motor vehicle accident/death claim. The court recorded the witness's testimony that the deceased was 72 years old, that no expenses were incurred for funeral/cremation, and that there was no financial dependency. The court found the witness's testimony unreliable for claiming compensation. The petition/claim is dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove damages and dependency, with the court holding that the defendant (2nd respondent) is not liable to pay any relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary Case No.: M.V.C 723/2024 | Date: 30-01-2026 The witness (PW-01) testified regarding a motor vehicle accident/death claim. The court recorded the witness's testimony that the deceased was 72 years old, that no expenses were incurred for funeral/cremation, and that there was no financial dependency. The court found the witness's testimony unreliable for claiming compensation. The petition/claim is dismissed as the plaintiff failed to prove damages and dependency, with the court holding that the defendant (2nd respondent) is not liable to pay any relief. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts