MOJIBHAI MAGANBHAI KALMI ALIAS KALMI vs DIPAK DEVJIBHAI CHUDASAMA DRIVER OF MOTER CYCLE GJ-11-CG-3910 Advocate - M K MIYATRA — 275/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 164,. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJJN010023292025

Case disposed

e-Filing Number

-

Filing Number

275/2025

Filing Date

13-11-2025

Registration No

275/2025

Registration Date

13-11-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH

Judge

1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Decision Date

14th March 2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Acts & Sections

MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Section 164,

Petitioner(s)

MOJIBHAI MAGANBHAI KALMI ALIAS KALMI

Adv. K L SANCHELA

Respondent(s)

DIPAK DEVJIBHAI CHUDASAMA DRIVER OF MOTER CYCLE GJ-11-CG-3910 Advocate - M K MIYATRA

MAHESH KANJIBHAI CHUDASAMA OWNER OF MOTER CYCLE GJ-11-CG-3910

Adv. M K MIYATRA

THE I.C.I.C.I. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Adv. M C JANI

KAJI MAGANBHAI KALMI DRIVER/OWNER OF RIXA NO. GJ-11-UU-0258

Hearing History

Judge: 1-PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

14-03-2026

Disposed

13-03-2026

ORDER

06-03-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

17-02-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

31-01-2026

SUMMONS - NOTICE

Final Orders / Judgements

14-03-2026
ORDER

Summary The MAC Tribunal at Junagadh disposed of claim petition MACP No.275/2025 by accepting a compromise settlement between the claimant and insurance company for Rs.20,000 reached through National Lok-Adalat mediation. The tribunal directed the insurance company to deposit this amount as full and final compensation, with no court fee deduction, and noted that the compromise does not operate as res judicata for other claims arising from the same vehicular accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The MAC Tribunal at Junagadh disposed of claim petition MACP No.275/2025 by accepting a compromise settlement between the claimant and insurance company for Rs.20,000 reached through National Lok-Adalat mediation. The tribunal directed the insurance company to deposit this amount as full and final compensation, with no court fee deduction, and noted that the compromise does not operate as res judicata for other claims arising from the same vehicular accident. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT JUNAGADH All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case