Surtiben Alias Surtaben Keshavbhai Gadhiya vs Vikaskumar Rajkumar Sachdev (Driver) Advocate - P V BAVALIYA — 35/2023
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 10th April 2026.
MACP - MAC PETITION
CNR: GJBT010011492023
Filing Number
35/2023
Filing Date
18-Aug-2023
Registration No
35/2023
Registration Date
18-Aug-2023
Court
DISTRICT COURT, BOTAD
Judge
1-Principal District Judge
Decision Date
10-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Last updated 31-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Surtiben Alias Surtaben Keshavbhai Gadhiya
Adv. K D SHEKH
Respondent(s)
-
1.Vikaskumar Rajkumar Sachdev (Driver) Advocate - P V BAVALIYA
-
2.Himanshu Rajendra Khatvani (Owner)
Adv. P V BAVALIYA
-
3.Liberty General Insurance Ltd.
Adv. N H JHALA
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
10-Apr-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case 35/2023 Summary The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Botad awarded compensation to two injury claimants arising from a January 2021 motorcycle-car collision. The tribunal found the car driver solely negligent and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 4,10,769 to one claimant and Rs. 1,44,601 to the other (the driver's wife), plus 8% annual interest, despite the driver lacking a valid driving license—ruling that third-party claimants cannot be denied compensation for the owner's policy breach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
10-Apr-2026
Disposed
Principal District Judge
-
27-Mar-2026
Judgement
Principal District Judge
-
13-Mar-2026
For Argument of opponent
Principal District Judge
-
13-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
06-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
16-Jan-2026
Final Arguments
Principal District Judge
-
02-Jan-2026
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
12-Dec-2025
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
28-Nov-2025
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
14-Nov-2025
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
26-Sep-2025
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
12-Sep-2025
Opponents Evidence
Principal District Judge
-
08-Aug-2025
For Other evidence of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
25-Jul-2025
For Other evidence of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
04-Jul-2025
For Other evidence of Applicant
Principal District Judge
-
02-May-2025
Evidence Of Applicant
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
28-Mar-2025
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
28-Feb-2025
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
07-Feb-2025
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
13-Dec-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
22-Nov-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
27-Sep-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
19-Jul-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
31-May-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
05-Apr-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
09-Mar-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
09-Feb-2024
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
15-Dec-2023
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
09-Dec-2023
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
27-Oct-2023
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
22-Sep-2023
Written Statement
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
09-Sep-2023
Notice To Opponents
Principal District & Sessions Judge
-
18-Aug-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
18-Aug-2023
Case filed
Registration No. 35/2023
Case 35/2023 Summary The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Botad awarded compensation to two injury claimants arising from a January 2021 motorcycle-car collision. The tribunal found the car driver solely negligent and directed the insurance company to pay Rs. 4,10,769 to one claimant and Rs. 1,44,601 to the other (the driver's wife), plus 8% annual interest, despite the driver lacking a valid driving license—ruling that third-party claimants cannot be denied compensation for the owner's policy breach. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts