KAVITA (DAR) vs NANHE LAL (346/18, KALKAJI) — 1032/2018
Case under Indian Penal Code Section 279,337,304A,427. Disposed: Contested--AWARD on 16th May 2026.
MACT - M.A.C.T.
CNR: DLSE010092702018
Filing Number
4964/2018
Filing Date
12-11-2018
Registration No
1032/2018
Registration Date
12-11-2018
Court
District and Sessions Judge, South-East , Saket
Judge
2-PO (MACT)-01
Decision Date
16th May 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--AWARD
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
KAVITA (DAR)
Adv. PP
Respondent(s)
NANHE LAL (346/18, KALKAJI)
PARAMJEET SINGH
GO DIGIT GEN. INS.
Hearing History
Judge: 2-PO (MACT)-01
Disposed
ORDER .
Arguments .
Arguments .
Arguments .
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 16-05-2026 | Disposed |
| 13-04-2026 | ORDER . |
| 13-03-2026 | Arguments . |
| 04-02-2026 | Arguments . |
| 13-11-2025 | Arguments . |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary: KAVITA v. NANHE LAL (MACT 1032/2018) Decision (16.05.2026): The tribunal awarded Rs.65,68,875 in total compensation to the widow and two minor daughters of Fateh Singh, who died in a motorcycle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a tempo vehicle. The insurance company (Go-Digit) was held primarily liable despite claiming the policy became effective after the accident, as the tribunal found the unmodified policy showed coverage from 00:00 hrs on 09.09.2018—before the 03:15 PM accident time. The tribunal rejected the insurer's "computer glitch" defense, noting the policy modification occurred only after the DAR filing and no fraud by the vehicle owner was established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Case Summary: KAVITA v. NANHE LAL (MACT 1032/2018) Decision (16.05.2026): The tribunal awarded Rs.65,68,875 in total compensation to the widow and two minor daughters of Fateh Singh, who died in a motorcycle accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a tempo vehicle. The insurance company (Go-Digit) was held primarily liable despite claiming the policy became effective after the accident, as the tribunal found the unmodified policy showed coverage from 00:00 hrs on 09.09.2018—before the 03:15 PM accident time. The tribunal rejected the insurer's "computer glitch" defense, noting the policy modification occurred only after the DAR filing and no fraud by the vehicle owner was established. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts