PARAS DINESHBHAI TAJPARA vs RIPESH ARVINDBHAI BAREIYA — 235/2018
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 17th March 2026.
MACP - MAC PETITION
CNR: GJJN220013152018
Filing Number
235/2018
Filing Date
11-12-2017
Registration No
235/2018
Registration Date
11-12-2017
Court
Additional Court, Vanthali
Judge
1-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Decision Date
17th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
PARAS DINESHBHAI TAJPARA
Adv. K.L.SANCHELA
Respondent(s)
RIPESH ARVINDBHAI BAREIYA
THE UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD
Adv. V S JETHAVA
Hearing History
Judge: 1-3rd ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE
Disposed
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
FINAL ARGUMENTS
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 12-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 03-03-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 24-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
| 17-02-2026 | FINAL ARGUMENTS |
Final Orders / Judgements
CASE SUMMARY The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed 23-year-old Paras Dineshbhai Tajpara's claim for ₹20 lakh compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in a 2015 car accident, finding multiple irreconcilable contradictions in his evidence that undermined the credibility and genuineness of his case. The tribunal identified material inconsistencies regarding the accident date (variously stated as 23/03/2015, 29/03/2015, 30/03/2015, and 30/08/2015), vehicle details (registration number shown as both GJ-1-KA-4391 and GJ-1-AK-4391), vehicle type (Qualis vs. Tavera), driver identity (claimant vs. owner vs. hired driver Amitbhai Vegad), and an unexplained five-month delay in lodging the complaint, ultimately concluding the claimant failed to prove the accident occurred as alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
CASE SUMMARY The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dismissed 23-year-old Paras Dineshbhai Tajpara's claim for ₹20 lakh compensation for injuries allegedly sustained in a 2015 car accident, finding multiple irreconcilable contradictions in his evidence that undermined the credibility and genuineness of his case. The tribunal identified material inconsistencies regarding the accident date (variously stated as 23/03/2015, 29/03/2015, 30/03/2015, and 30/08/2015), vehicle details (registration number shown as both GJ-1-KA-4391 and GJ-1-AK-4391), vehicle type (Qualis vs. Tavera), driver identity (claimant vs. owner vs. hired driver Amitbhai Vegad), and an unexplained five-month delay in lodging the complaint, ultimately concluding the claimant failed to prove the accident occurred as alleged. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts