SHILPABEN RAJESH CHUDASAMA GUARDIAN OF MINOR RANVIR RAJESH CHUDASAMA vs Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP — 36/2026

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--ALLOWED on 07th March 2026.

Case disposed

CMA DC - CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION - DISTRICT COURT

CNR: GJJN010004382026

Filing Number

36/2026

Filing Date

28-Feb-2026

Registration No

36/2026

Registration Date

28-Feb-2026

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

07-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--ALLOWED

Last updated 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SHILPABEN RAJESH CHUDASAMA GUARDIAN OF MINOR RANVIR RAJESH CHUDASAMA

    Adv. P B PANERI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Government of Gujarat Advocate - DGP

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-Mar-2026

    OrderView PDF

    The Junagadh District Court granted the petitioner's application to sue as an indigent person in a motor accident compensation claim seeking ₹15,00,000 for injuries to a minor. The court found no government evidence contradicting the petitioner's financial inability to pay court fees and accepted the advocate's undertaking to pay fees if required, permitting the petition to proceed under indigent status with conditional fee payment if the petitioner acquires properties exceeding declared limits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 07-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Notice To Opponents

    Principal District Judge

  5. 28-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 28-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. 36/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Junagadh District Court granted the petitioner's application to sue as an indigent person in a motor accident compensation claim seeking ₹15,00,000 for injuries to a minor. The court found no government evidence contradicting the petitioner's financial inability to pay court fees and accepted the advocate's undertaking to pay fees if required, permitting the petition to proceed under indigent status with conditional fee payment if the petitioner acquires properties exceeding declared limits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case