DASHRATHKUMAR LAKHABHAI THAKOR vs CHATURBHAI GAGABHAI RAVAL Advocate - EX PARTY — 6/2023

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 24th March 2026.

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJBK010000742023

Filing Number

6/2023

Filing Date

11-Jan-2023

Registration No

6/2023

Registration Date

11-Jan-2023

Court

DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

24-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED

Last updated 06-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DASHRATHKUMAR LAKHABHAI THAKOR

    Adv. J C MADHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.CHATURBHAI GAGABHAI RAVAL Advocate - EX PARTY

  2. 2.RAMESHBHAI LALJIBHAI ASANIYA

    Adv. EX PARTY

  3. 3.I.C.I.C.I. LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

    Adv. R A RAVAL

  4. 4.HARESHJI BHUDARJI THAKOR

    Adv. EX PARTY

  5. 5.BHUDARJI RAGNATHJI THAKOR

    Adv. EX PARTY

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 24-Mar-2026

    JudegementView PDF

    Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to two claimants injured in a motorcycle collision on March 27, 2022. The tribunal held the driver of the offending motorcycle (who lacked a valid driving license) solely negligent and ordered the insurance company to pay compensation under the "pay and recover" principle—requiring the insurer to first compensate the victims, then recover the amount from the vehicle owner. Claimant 1 received Rs. 7,39,840 and Claimant 2 received Rs. 8,46,400, plus 9% annual interest, with 30% paid in cash and 70% deposited in a fixed deposit for 5 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 24-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 10-Mar-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  6. 23-Feb-2026

    Judgement

    Principal District Judge

  7. 17-Feb-2026

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  8. 10-Feb-2026

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  9. 09-Feb-2026

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  10. 19-Jan-2026

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  11. 19-Jan-2026

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  12. 30-Dec-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  13. 09-Dec-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  14. 18-Nov-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  15. 03-Nov-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  16. 14-Oct-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  17. 07-Oct-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  18. 06-Oct-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  19. 24-Sep-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  20. 16-Sep-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  21. 03-Sep-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  22. 20-Aug-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  23. 12-Aug-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  24. 05-Aug-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  25. 23-Jul-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  26. 16-Jul-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  27. 12-Jul-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  28. 16-Jun-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  29. 09-Jun-2025

    Opponents Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  30. 28-May-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  31. 20-May-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  32. 19-Apr-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  33. 08-Apr-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  34. 26-Mar-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  35. 17-Mar-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  36. 24-Feb-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  37. 05-Feb-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  38. 20-Jan-2025

    Applicants Evidence

    Principal District Judge

  39. 17-Dec-2024

    Applicants Evidence

    5th Addl District Judge

  40. 10-Dec-2024

    Issues

    5th Addl District Judge

  41. 13-Nov-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    5th Addl District Judge

  42. 08-Nov-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    5th Addl District Judge

  43. 02-Sep-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  44. 26-Jun-2024

    Written Statement/Reply

    3rd Addl District Judge

  45. 08-May-2024

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  46. 07-May-2024

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  47. 15-Mar-2024

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  48. 18-Jan-2024

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  49. 28-Nov-2023

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  50. 26-Sep-2023

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  51. 28-Aug-2023

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  52. 27-Jun-2023

    Summons - Notice

    2nd Addl District Judge

  53. 27-Apr-2023

    Summons - Notice

    3rd Addl District Judge

  54. 21-Feb-2023

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  55. 11-Jan-2023

    Case filed

    Registration No. 6/2023

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to two claimants injured in a motorcycle collision on March 27, 2022. The tribunal held the driver of the offending motorcycle (who lacked a valid driving license) solely negligent and ordered the insurance company to pay compensation under the "pay and recover" principle—requiring the insurer to first compensate the victims, then recover the amount from the vehicle owner. Claimant 1 received Rs. 7,39,840 and Claimant 2 received Rs. 8,46,400, plus 9% annual interest, with 30% paid in cash and 70% deposited in a fixed deposit for 5 years. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case