Dinesh Acharya vs Shodhan Y — 1052/2023
Case under Indian Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section 166. Status: AWAIT ORDER. Next hearing: 28th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUP020044642023
Next Hearing
28th April 2026
Filing Number
1052/2023
Filing Date
13-10-2023
Registration No
1052/2023
Registration Date
10-11-2023
Court
PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, UDUPI
Judge
508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Dinesh Acharya
Adv. SANKAPPA A.
Respondent(s)
Shodhan Y
The Divisional Manager, Shri Ram General Ins. Co.Ltd., Mangalore
Adv. MADHUKESH RAI
Hearing History
Judge: 508-PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM UDUPI
AWAIT ORDER
AWAIT ORDER
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | AWAIT ORDER |
| 10-02-2026 | AWAIT ORDER |
| 02-02-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 12-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
| 03-01-2026 | JUDGEMENT |
Interim Orders
Summary: This is a civil case (MVC 1052/2023) heard on 23-09-2024 before the Principal District Court, Udupi, involving a medical negligence claim. The witness (hospital doctor) testified regarding treatment provided to the petitioner from 21-03-2023 to 7-11-2023, including amputation of the petitioner's leg due to gangrene, and issuance of a disability certificate. The cross-examination revealed critical discrepancies: the witness admitted that improper/delayed treatment caused gangrene leading to amputation, but the court found the witness issued an inflated disability certificate beyond medical evidence to provide greater compensation to the petitioner, which was deemed incorrect. The case proceeded with evidence recorded, and no further cross-examination was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: This is a civil case (MVC 1052/2023) heard on 23-09-2024 before the Principal District Court, Udupi, involving a medical negligence claim. The witness (hospital doctor) testified regarding treatment provided to the petitioner from 21-03-2023 to 7-11-2023, including amputation of the petitioner's leg due to gangrene, and issuance of a disability certificate. The cross-examination revealed critical discrepancies: the witness admitted that improper/delayed treatment caused gangrene leading to amputation, but the court found the witness issued an inflated disability certificate beyond medical evidence to provide greater compensation to the petitioner, which was deemed incorrect. The case proceeded with evidence recorded, and no further cross-examination was conducted. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts