Narmada W/o Devindrappa, Age 22 Years, Occ Tailor (Now Nil) vs Kethavath Sunil, Age 45 Years, Occ Onwer of the vehicle — 373/2024
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section Us,166,of,IMV,Act. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAYG020000112025
Filing Number
373/2024
Filing Date
19-12-2024
Registration No
373/2024
Registration Date
21-12-2024
Court
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, YADGIR
Judge
333-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, Yadgir
Decision Date
14th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Narmada W/o Devindrappa, Age 22 Years, Occ Tailor (Now Nil)
Adv. N.G. RAVINDRA
Respondent(s)
Kethavath Sunil, Age 45 Years, Occ Onwer of the vehicle
The Zurich Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Limited
Hearing History
Judge: 333-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, Yadgir
Disposed
A.D.R.-CIVL
A.D.R.-CIVL
A.D.R.-CIVL
A.D.R.-CIVL
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | A.D.R.-CIVL |
| 16-02-2026 | A.D.R.-CIVL |
| 14-01-2026 | A.D.R.-CIVL |
| 24-12-2025 | A.D.R.-CIVL |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: MVC 373/2024 The court approved a compromise settlement in this motor vehicle accident claim. The petitioner, Narmada (22 years old), who originally claimed ₹50 lakhs compensation for injuries/death, and the insurance company agreed to settle the matter for ₹3 lakhs in full and final settlement. The court accepted the joint memo and passed an award accordingly, with the petitioner not entitled to any additional costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MVC 373/2024 The court approved a compromise settlement in this motor vehicle accident claim. The petitioner, Narmada (22 years old), who originally claimed ₹50 lakhs compensation for injuries/death, and the insurance company agreed to settle the matter for ₹3 lakhs in full and final settlement. The court accepted the joint memo and passed an award accordingly, with the petitioner not entitled to any additional costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts