Ruthvika Rep by her mother Hamsa vs Ravindra Shetty — 127/2023

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: SUMMONS. Next hearing: 18th March 2026.

M.V.C. - ACCIDENT CLAIM CASES U/R MOTOR VEHICLES ACT

CNR: KAUP200001282023

SUMMONS

Next Hearing

18th March 2026

Filing Number

127/2023

Filing Date

25-01-2023

Registration No

127/2023

Registration Date

16-02-2023

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA

Judge

801-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 166

Petitioner(s)

Ruthvika Rep by her mother Hamsa

Adv. ANANDA RAMAKRISHNA.RAO K

Megharaj

Shararn Raj

Respondent(s)

Ravindra Shetty

The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd., Karkala

Hearing History

Judge: 801-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM

06-03-2026

SUMMONS

17-01-2026

EVIDENCE

13-12-2025

SUMMONS

09-12-2025

A.D.R.

11-11-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

20-12-2023
Issue
13-06-2025
Deposition
27-09-2025
Deposition
06-03-2026
Deposition

Summary: This is a civil court order (MVC 127/2023) dated 06.03.2026 from a court in Karnataka, India. The court examined PW-1 (witness) under oath regarding a case involving injuries to the witness's daughter caused by a vehicle accident. The court found that the witness's petition for compensation was filed beyond the prescribed time limit; however, the court noted that the witness was unaware of the legal requirement to consult a lawyer and that the delay was not intentional, thus holding the witness entitled to compensation despite the late filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: This is a civil court order (MVC 127/2023) dated 06.03.2026 from a court in Karnataka, India. The court examined PW-1 (witness) under oath regarding a case involving injuries to the witness's daughter caused by a vehicle accident. The court found that the witness's petition for compensation was filed beyond the prescribed time limit; however, the court noted that the witness was unaware of the legal requirement to consult a lawyer and that the delay was not intentional, thus holding the witness entitled to compensation despite the late filing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ACJM, KARKALA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case