NITABEN VINODBHAI PATEL vs DHANRAJKUMAR VIKRAMSINH CHAVDA — 1035/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJKH010067992025

Filing Number

1035/2025

Filing Date

14-Oct-2025

Registration No

1035/2025

Registration Date

14-Oct-2025

Court

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT NADIAD

Judge

1-Principal District Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 23-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NITABEN VINODBHAI PATEL

    Adv. D K DARJI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.DHANRAJKUMAR VIKRAMSINH CHAVDA

  2. 2.IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

    Adv. R J MAKWANA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    The Lok Adalat (M.A.C.T.) at Nadiad approved a settlement between the applicant and the insurance company in a motor accident case, awarding Rs. 14,38,000/- (including medical bills of Rs. 12,13,080/-) to the petitioner. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the amount in a designated district bank account, and the petition is disposed of as compromised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  5. 03-Feb-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  6. 29-Dec-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  7. 19-Nov-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  8. 14-Oct-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  9. 14-Oct-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1035/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Lok Adalat (M.A.C.T.) at Nadiad approved a settlement between the applicant and the insurance company in a motor accident case, awarding Rs. 14,38,000/- (including medical bills of Rs. 12,13,080/-) to the petitioner. The respondent insurance company is ordered to deposit the amount in a designated district bank account, and the petition is disposed of as compromised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case