VIDHYA YADAV vs DEEPAK — 266/2021

Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 26th May 2026.

Case disposed

MACT - M.A.C.T.

CNR: DLSE010025242021

Filing Number

1578/2021

Filing Date

09-Mar-2021

Registration No

266/2021

Registration Date

12-Mar-2021

Court

District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket

Judge

2-Po (Mact)-01

Decision Date

26-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 22-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Indian Penal Code Section 279,304A

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VIDHYA YADAV

    Adv. NIKHIL AGRAHARI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DEEPAK

  2. 2.MANOJ

  3. 3.IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 26-May-2026

    Copy Of Order

  3. 26-May-2026

    Copy Of Judgment

    Case Summary: Vidhya Yadav v. Deepak & Others (MACT No. 266/2021) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petitioners' compensation claim, finding that they failed to prove the deceased (Ghanshyam) suffered injuries in the alleged February 17, 2020 road accident. Critical inconsistencies undermined the claim: the sole eyewitness provided contradictory testimony and was not present at the accident; the victim was not named in the FIR despite 3-4 other injured persons being listed; and medical records showed hospitalization at 6:52 a.m. on February 17—hours before the alleged 5 p.m. accident—with no external injuries and a postmortem citing chronic liver disease as the cause of death. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 26-May-2026

    Disposed

    Po (Mact)-01

  5. 18-Mar-2026

    Copy Of Order

  6. 18-Mar-2026

    Defendant/Respondent Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  7. 02-Dec-2025

    Copy Of Order

  8. 02-Dec-2025

    Defendant/Respondent Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  9. 15-Jul-2025

    Copy Of Order

  10. 15-Jul-2025

    Defendant/Respondent Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  11. 05-Feb-2025

    Copy Of Order

  12. 05-Feb-2025

    Copy Of Order

  13. 05-Feb-2025

    Copy Of Order

  14. 05-Feb-2025

    Copy Of Order

  15. 05-Feb-2025

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  16. 31-Aug-2024

    Copy Of Order

  17. 31-Aug-2024

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  18. 26-Mar-2024

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  19. 29-Nov-2023

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

  20. 07-Aug-2023

    Copy Of Order

  21. 07-Aug-2023

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  22. 17-Feb-2023

    Copy Of Order

  23. 17-Feb-2023

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  24. 07-Jan-2023

    Copy Of Order

  25. 07-Jan-2023

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  26. 03-Dec-2022

    Copy Of Order

  27. 03-Dec-2022

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  28. 22-Nov-2022

    Copy Of Order

  29. 22-Nov-2022

    Copy Of Order

  30. 22-Nov-2022

    Plaintiff/Petitioner Evidence

    Po (Mact)-01

  31. 23-Aug-2022

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  32. 24-May-2022

    Copy Of Order

  33. 24-May-2022

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  34. 15-Mar-2022

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  35. 14-Mar-2022

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  36. 25-Feb-2022

    Copy Of Order

  37. 25-Feb-2022

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  38. 03-Dec-2021

    Copy Of Order

  39. 03-Dec-2021

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  40. 03-Sep-2021

    Copy Of Order

  41. 03-Sep-2021

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  42. 10-Jun-2021

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  43. 24-Mar-2021

    Misc. cases

    Po (Mact)-01

  44. 12-Mar-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  45. 09-Mar-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. 266/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Vidhya Yadav v. Deepak & Others (MACT No. 266/2021) The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed the petitioners' compensation claim, finding that they failed to prove the deceased (Ghanshyam) suffered injuries in the alleged February 17, 2020 road accident. Critical inconsistencies undermined the claim: the sole eyewitness provided contradictory testimony and was not present at the accident; the victim was not named in the FIR despite 3-4 other injured persons being listed; and medical records showed hospitalization at 6:52 a.m. on February 17—hours before the alleged 5 p.m. accident—with no external injuries and a postmortem citing chronic liver disease as the cause of death. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case