Ramesh vs Kerekon Vinayak Advocate - VISHWANATHA SHETTY — 743/2024

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: KAUP020039582024

EVIDENCE

Next Hearing

06th April 2026

Filing Number

743/2024

Filing Date

02-08-2024

Registration No

743/2024

Registration Date

23-08-2024

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)

Ramesh

Adv. SANKAPPA A.

Respondent(s)

Kerekon Vinayak Advocate - VISHWANATHA SHETTY

The Divisional Manager, ICICI Lombard General Ins.Co.Ltd.,Mangalore

Adv. DINESH B.SHETTY

Hearing History

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

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

02-03-2026

EVIDENCE

28-02-2026

EVIDENCE

21-02-2026

EVIDENCE

10-02-2026

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

02-09-2025
Issue
24-10-2025
Deposition
10-02-2026
Deposition

Case Summary Case No.: M.V.C 743/2024 Order Date: 10-02-2026 Outcome: The court examined the petitioner's disability assessment certificate and found discrepancies in the disability determination. The court rejected the claim that the petitioner had no disability, noting that medical records show 30.2% disability was assessed. The court held that the hospital discharge certificate and disability certificate were issued based on actual medical examination and treatment provided, and the petitioner's employment was not considered in determining disability. The case proceeded with witness examination and evidence recording on the specified date. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary Case No.: M.V.C 743/2024 Order Date: 10-02-2026 Outcome: The court examined the petitioner's disability assessment certificate and found discrepancies in the disability determination. The court rejected the claim that the petitioner had no disability, noting that medical records show 30.2% disability was assessed. The court held that the hospital discharge certificate and disability certificate were issued based on actual medical examination and treatment provided, and the petitioner's employment was not considered in determining disability. The case proceeded with witness examination and evidence recording on the specified date. 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