THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD D.R.MAHADIK vs MR. PRAMODH KUMAR MALHOTRA AND ORS — FA/372/2016

Case under Motor Vehicles Act,1939 Section 173. Disposed: Contested--Rejected on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 14-Dec-2020

CNR: HCBM010045442013

Filing Number

FA/3248/2013

Filing Date

29-Jan-2013

Registration No

FA/372/2016

Registration Date

14-Mar-2016

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain

Bench Type

Single

Category

COMPENSATION ( 7 )

Sub-Category

INSURER LIABILITY MATTERS ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Rejected

Last updated 09-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act,1939 Section 173

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD D.R.MAHADIK

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.MR. PRAMODH KUMAR MALHOTRA AND ORS

  2. 2.MR. GAURAV P. MALHOTRA

  3. 3.MR. VAIBHAV P. MALHOTRA

  4. 4.MS. VIBHUTI P. MALHOTRA

  5. 5.SHRI KELVIESTER J. CARVALHO

  6. 6.MR JITENDRA ANANT BHOIR

  7. 7.THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed New India Assurance's appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's 2012 award of Rs. 6,56,032 compensation plus 7% interest. The insurer's sole argument—that the tempo driver lacked proper transport vehicle licensing—was rejected as it was neither raised nor proved before the Tribunal and could not be belatedly introduced 14 years later without sufficient cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Dec-2020

    For Admission - Fresh CIVIL Side Matters

    According To Sitting List

  4. 29-Jan-2013

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA/372/2016

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed New India Assurance's appeals against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's 2012 award of Rs. 6,56,032 compensation plus 7% interest. The insurer's sole argument—that the tempo driver lacked proper transport vehicle licensing—was rejected as it was neither raised nor proved before the Tribunal and could not be belatedly introduced 14 years later without sufficient cause. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case