Marilingappa S/o Mareppa, Age 20 Yrs, occ Student and milk Vendor vs Hanumantappa s/o sabanna Sangulkar, Age 42 Yrs, occ Owner of Car Bearing — 53/2026
Case under --- Section U/Sec,166,of,MV,Act,1989. Disposed: Uncontested--SETTLED IN LOK ADALATH on 14th March 2026.
M.V.C. - Accident Claim Cases u/r M.V.
CNR: KAYG020005482026
Filing Number
32/2026
Filing Date
09-03-2026
Registration No
53/2026
Registration Date
12-03-2026
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)
Marilingappa S/o Mareppa, Age 20 Yrs, occ Student and milk Vendor
Adv. SANTOSH BADAMI ESHWARAYYA
Respondent(s)
Hanumantappa s/o sabanna Sangulkar, Age 42 Yrs, occ Owner of Car Bearing
Hearing History
Judge: 333-SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, Yadgir
Disposed
NOTICE
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-03-2026 | NOTICE |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: MVC No. 53/2026 In this motor vehicle compensation case, 20-year-old petitioner Marilingappa (student and milk vendor) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking Rs. 33,00,000 compensation against car owner Hanumanatappa. The Senior Civil Judge & MACT-II, Yadgiri accepted a joint compromise memo filed by both parties, settling the matter for Rs. 1,00,000 as full and final settlement, which was already received by the petitioner. The court closed the petition in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: MVC No. 53/2026 In this motor vehicle compensation case, 20-year-old petitioner Marilingappa (student and milk vendor) filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 seeking Rs. 33,00,000 compensation against car owner Hanumanatappa. The Senior Civil Judge & MACT-II, Yadgiri accepted a joint compromise memo filed by both parties, settling the matter for Rs. 1,00,000 as full and final settlement, which was already received by the petitioner. The court closed the petition in the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts