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

EVIDENCE

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

Motor Vehicle Act 1988 Section 166

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

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE

21-02-2026

EVIDENCE

23-01-2026

EVIDENCE

08-12-2025

EVIDENCE

12-11-2025

EVIDENCE

Interim Orders

06-08-2025
Issue
25-09-2025
Deposition
12-11-2025
Deposition

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

More from this court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,KUNDAPURA All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case