DAUDBHAI HAJIBHAI LAKHA vs DIPESH RAMESHBHAI PANCHASARA — 78/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--DISMISSED on 08th April 2026.

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJJN210012032025

Filing Number

78/2025

Filing Date

24-Sep-2025

Registration No

78/2025

Registration Date

24-Sep-2025

Court

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT-KESHOD

Judge

2-Addl. District Judge

Decision Date

08-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--DISMISSED

Last updated 21-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DAUDBHAI HAJIBHAI LAKHA

    Adv. K L SANCHELA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DIPESH RAMESHBHAI PANCHASARA

  2. 2.THE ZURICH KOTAK GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

    Adv. P M HIRPARA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Apr-2026

    Order

    Summary: The Keshod MACT dismissed the motor accident compensation petition (MACP No.78-2025) because the claimant had filed multiple petitions for the same accident before different tribunals (Dhoraji MACT and Rajkot MACT). The court held that such multiple filings are not maintainable under Indian law and constitute an attempt to obtain double or triple compensation benefits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Apr-2026

    Disposed

    Addl. District Judge

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  5. 18-Feb-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  6. 28-Jan-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  7. 24-Dec-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  8. 26-Nov-2025

    Written Statement/Reply

    Addl. District Judge

  9. 29-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 24-Sep-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 78/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Keshod MACT dismissed the motor accident compensation petition (MACP No.78-2025) because the claimant had filed multiple petitions for the same accident before different tribunals (Dhoraji MACT and Rajkot MACT). The court held that such multiple filings are not maintainable under Indian law and constitute an attempt to obtain double or triple compensation benefits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case