GANGABA RAJESHDAN GADHAVI vs SIDDHRAJBHA HAJABHA BHAGAD Advocate - R M SAIYED — 1223/2022

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJAH010069272022

Filing Number

1223/2022

Filing Date

10-Nov-2022

Registration No

1223/2022

Registration Date

10-Nov-2022

Court

Ahmedabad District

Judge

2-10th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 31-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.GANGABA RAJESHDAN GADHAVI

    Adv. P.N.THAKAR

  2. 2.SAKTIDAN RAJESHDAN DETHA

  3. 3.ESHRANI YOGITABEN JAGDISHBHAI D/O RAJESHDAN GADHAVI

  4. 4.DHARAMRAJ RAJESHDAN DETHA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SIDDHRAJBHA HAJABHA BHAGAD Advocate - R M SAIYED

  2. 2.JAGTIYA RAMBHA DUNGRBHA

    Adv. R M SAIYED

  3. 3.TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    Adv. M J PARIKH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The MAC petition was settled through compromise, with the court recording an amicable settlement of Rs. 9,00,000 as full and final compensation between the claimants and TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. TATA AIG was directed to pay the amount within 3 months, with 9% per annum simple interest applicable if payment is delayed, and each party to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    10th Addl District Judge

  4. 13-Mar-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    10th Addl District Judge

  5. 28-Jan-2026

    Applicants Evidence

    10th Addl District Judge

  6. 12-Dec-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    11th Addl District Judge

  7. 13-Nov-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    11th Addl District Judge

  8. 07-Oct-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    11th Addl District Judge

  9. 10-Sep-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    11th Addl District Judge

  10. 21-Aug-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    11th Addl District Judge

  11. 17-Jul-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    11th Addl District Judge

  12. 18-Jun-2025

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    11th Addl District Judge

  13. 23-Apr-2025

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  14. 13-Feb-2025

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  15. 26-Dec-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  16. 24-Oct-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  17. 12-Sep-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  18. 31-Jul-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  19. 28-Jun-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    6th Addl District Judge

  20. 10-May-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    7th Addl District Judge

  21. 20-Mar-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    7th Addl District Judge

  22. 09-Feb-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    7th Addl District Judge

  23. 18-Jan-2024

    Hearing On Interim Relief (No Fault Liability)

    Principal District Judge

  24. 25-Oct-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  25. 08-Aug-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  26. 07-Jun-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  27. 03-Mar-2023

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  28. 22-Dec-2022

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  29. 10-Nov-2022

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1223/2022

casestatus.in Summary

The MAC petition was settled through compromise, with the court recording an amicable settlement of Rs. 9,00,000 as full and final compensation between the claimants and TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. TATA AIG was directed to pay the amount within 3 months, with 9% per annum simple interest applicable if payment is delayed, and each party to bear their own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case