Babi vs Sharath Kumar Shetty — 444/2023
Case under Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section 166. Status: EVIDENCE. Next hearing: 06th April 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAUP310004342023
Next Hearing
06th April 2026
Filing Number
444/2023
Filing Date
25-05-2023
Registration No
444/2023
Registration Date
15-06-2023
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,KUNDAPURA
Judge
515-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,KUNDAPURA
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Babi
Adv. Shashidhara Hegde
Respondent(s)
Sharath Kumar Shetty
The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,Bengaluru
Hearing History
Judge: 515-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,KUNDAPURA
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
EVIDENCE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 21-02-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 23-01-2026 | EVIDENCE |
| 08-12-2025 | EVIDENCE |
| 12-11-2025 | EVIDENCE |
Interim Orders
Summary This is a Motor Vehicles Act compensation case (MVC 444/2023) heard on 12-11-2025. The court examined the petitioner's testimony regarding injuries sustained in a motor accident, including a left leg fracture with three broken bones, skin grafting, and partial disability. The court found discrepancies in the petitioner's claims regarding the extent of disability and income loss, noting contradictions between the medical evidence presented and the petitioner's statements. The petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for the claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000 and was unable to provide adequate documentary evidence supporting the loss of income and disability claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary This is a Motor Vehicles Act compensation case (MVC 444/2023) heard on 12-11-2025. The court examined the petitioner's testimony regarding injuries sustained in a motor accident, including a left leg fracture with three broken bones, skin grafting, and partial disability. The court found discrepancies in the petitioner's claims regarding the extent of disability and income loss, noting contradictions between the medical evidence presented and the petitioner's statements. The petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to establish sufficient grounds for the claimed compensation of Rs. 30,000 and was unable to provide adequate documentary evidence supporting the loss of income and disability claims. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts