HEIR OF DECEASE SOHAN VAKSI KOTED(Legal Heir) vs SALVI SURESHBHAI BHAJAJI — 62/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 06th June 2026.
MACP - MAC PETITION
CNR: GJKH010002842022
Filing Number
62/2022
Filing Date
02-Feb-2022
Registration No
62/2022
Registration Date
02-Feb-2022
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD
Judge
6-2nd Addl District Judge
Decision Date
06-Jun-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Last updated 11-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HEIR OF DECEASE SOHAN VAKSI KOTED(Legal Heir)
Adv. K.B.PATEL1.
-
2.VAKSI NANKA KOTED 1.
-
3.PAVAN VAKSI KOTED 1.
-
4.KALU VAKSI KOTED 1.
-
5.VINOD VAKSI KOTED
Respondent(s)
-
1.SALVI SURESHBHAI BHAJAJI
-
2.GANDHINAGAR DIVISION, NURSARY DEPARTMENT
-
3.THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Adv. M M MALEK
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
06-Jun-2026
JudegementView PDF
Case Summary: M.A.C.P. No. 62/2022 and M.A.C.P. No. 68/2022 On October 3, 2021, two fatal motorcycle-truck collisions occurred at night. A motorcycle (RJ.12.AS.9287) collided with a stationary truck (GJ.18.G.6412) parked without indicators or reflectors. The tribunal held both parties negligent: the motorcycle rider 30% (excessive speed, inadequate care) and the truck driver 70% (improper parking on a running highway at night). For MACP No.62, the deceased's heirs recovered Rs.9,63,296 (70% of total). For MACP No.68, the parents recovered Rs.14,24,136 (70% of total). New India Assurance (truck insurer) was directed to pay first and recover from the vehicle owner; ICICI Lombard (motorcycle insurer) confirmed coverage for the pillion rider. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
06-Jun-2026
Disposed
2nd Addl District Judge
-
02-Jun-2026
Final Arguments
2nd Addl District Judge
-
11-May-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
07-May-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
07-May-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-May-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
13-Apr-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
30-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
16-Mar-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
23-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
09-Feb-2026
Final Arguments
3rd Addl District Judge
-
19-Jan-2026
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
22-Dec-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
25-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-Nov-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
10-Oct-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
16-Sep-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
26-Aug-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
29-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
29-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
22-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
01-Jul-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
30-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
10-Jun-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
22-Apr-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
25-Mar-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
04-Mar-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
28-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
28-Jan-2025
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
24-Dec-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
19-Nov-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
30-Sep-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
13-Aug-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Jul-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
08-Jul-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
18-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
11-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
11-Jun-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
3rd Addl District Judge
-
09-Apr-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
4th Addl District Judge
-
09-Apr-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
4th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2024
Evidence Of Opponent
4th Addl District Judge
-
26-Feb-2024
Evidence Of Applicant
4th Addl District Judge
-
06-Feb-2024
Evidence Of Applicant
4th Addl District Judge
-
06-Feb-2024
Evidence Of Applicant
4th Addl District Judge
-
09-Jan-2024
Evidence Of Appellant
4th Addl District Judge
-
09-Jan-2024
Evidence Of Applicant
4th Addl District Judge
-
12-Dec-2023
Evidence Of Appellant
4th Addl District Judge
-
12-Dec-2023
Evidence Of Appellant
4th Addl District Judge
-
20-Nov-2023
Evidence Of Appellant
4th Addl District Judge
-
20-Nov-2023
Evidence Of Appellant
4th Addl District Judge
-
14-Oct-2023
Evidence Of Appellant
4th Addl District Judge
-
07-Oct-2023
Reply
4th Addl District Judge
-
07-Oct-2023
Reply
4th Addl District Judge
-
18-Sep-2023
Reply
4th Addl District Judge
-
18-Sep-2023
Reply
4th Addl District Judge
-
21-Aug-2023
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
17-Jul-2023
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
11-Jul-2023
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
13-Jun-2023
Hearing
4th Addl District Judge
-
10-May-2023
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
11-Apr-2023
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
14-Feb-2023
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
04-Feb-2023
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
23-Dec-2022
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
12-Nov-2022
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
03-Oct-2022
OrderView PDF
-
03-Oct-2022
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
26-Sep-2022
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
05-Sep-2022
Hearing
Principal District Judge
-
08-Aug-2022
Reply
Principal District Judge
-
13-Jun-2022
Reply
Principal District Judge
-
12-Apr-2022
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
02-Feb-2022
Case filed
Registration No. 62/2022
Case Summary: M.A.C.P. No. 62/2022 and M.A.C.P. No. 68/2022 On October 3, 2021, two fatal motorcycle-truck collisions occurred at night. A motorcycle (RJ.12.AS.9287) collided with a stationary truck (GJ.18.G.6412) parked without indicators or reflectors. The tribunal held both parties negligent: the motorcycle rider 30% (excessive speed, inadequate care) and the truck driver 70% (improper parking on a running highway at night). For MACP No.62, the deceased's heirs recovered Rs.9,63,296 (70% of total). For MACP No.68, the parents recovered Rs.14,24,136 (70% of total). New India Assurance (truck insurer) was directed to pay first and recover from the vehicle owner; ICICI Lombard (motorcycle insurer) confirmed coverage for the pillion rider. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts