THAKOR HANSABEN SHAMBHUJI vs PRAKASHKUMAR RANULAL KHATRI Advocate - D J TIWARI — 195/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 164,. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 15th April 2026.
MACP - MAC PETITION
CNR: GJBK010026502025
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
195/2025
Filing Date
07-07-2025
Registration No
195/2025
Registration Date
07-07-2025
Court
DISTRICT COURT PALANPUR
Judge
6-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
15th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
THAKOR HANSABEN SHAMBHUJI
Adv. C S PARMAR
Respondent(s)
PRAKASHKUMAR RANULAL KHATRI Advocate - D J TIWARI
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Adv. N M JOSHI
Hearing History
Judge: 6-2nd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 15-04-2026 | Disposed | |
| 08-04-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 24-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 13-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS | |
| 09-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,50,000 compensation to the applicant under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grievous injuries sustained in a February 20, 2025 road accident, applying "no-fault liability" principles without requiring proof of negligence. Both the vehicle owner and insurance company were held jointly and severally liable, with the tribunal rejecting the insurer's defense regarding the driver's missing valid license, finding no proof that this was fundamental to causing the accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,50,000 compensation to the applicant under Section 164 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grievous injuries sustained in a February 20, 2025 road accident, applying "no-fault liability" principles without requiring proof of negligence. Both the vehicle owner and insurance company were held jointly and severally liable, with the tribunal rejecting the insurer's defense regarding the driver's missing valid license, finding no proof that this was fundamental to causing the accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts