Smt Nirmalamma vs Prakash Naik D S/o Dakya Naik — 1069/2024

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: EVIDENCE-C. Next hearing: 29th May 2026.

M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.

CNR: KAVN310021082024

EVIDENCE-C

Next Hearing

29th May 2026

e-Filing Number

21-12-2024

Filing Number

1069/2024

Filing Date

23-12-2024

Registration No

1069/2024

Registration Date

23-12-2024

Court

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI

Judge

1213-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 166

Petitioner(s)

Smt Nirmalamma

Adv. I Chidananda

Respondent(s)

Prakash Naik D S/o Dakya Naik

Hearing History

Judge: 1213-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT

06-03-2026

EVIDENCE-C

17-01-2026

EVIDENCE-C

05-12-2025

WRITTEN STATEMENTS/OBJECTION TO MAIN PETITION-C

14-11-2025

EVIDENCE-C

03-10-2025

EVIDENCE-C

Interim Orders

03-10-2025
Orders

Summary: The court allowed the petitioners' application (IA No.1) to condone a delay of 697 days in filing a motor vehicle compensation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner sought compensation for her husband's death in an accident, citing mental shock, health problems, and difficulty in securing documents as reasons for the delay. The court rejected the insurance company's argument that the petition was barred by the 6-month limitation period under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the MV Act being beneficial legislation should not be defeated on technical grounds. The case is posted for evidence on 14.11.2025. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The court allowed the petitioners' application (IA No.1) to condone a delay of 697 days in filing a motor vehicle compensation petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The petitioner sought compensation for her husband's death in an accident, citing mental shock, health problems, and difficulty in securing documents as reasons for the delay. The court rejected the insurance company's argument that the petition was barred by the 6-month limitation period under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding that the MV Act being beneficial legislation should not be defeated on technical grounds. The case is posted for evidence on 14.11.2025. 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 JMFC COURT, HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case