BHARATBHAI MANGALBHAI VAGHARI vs KISHORBHAI JASHVANTBHAI PARMAR — 1137/2025

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

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJKH010075962025

Filing Number

1137/2025

Filing Date

21-Nov-2025

Registration No

1137/2025

Registration Date

21-Nov-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 16-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.BHARATBHAI MANGALBHAI VAGHARI

    Adv. O G MANSURI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KISHORBHAI JASHVANTBHAI PARMAR

  2. 2.SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

    Adv. R G DAVE

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary: The Lok Adalat disposed of the motor accident compensation petition as compromised. The applicant and insurance company settled their dispute, with the applicant entitled to recover Rs. 8,82,000/- (including medical bills of Rs. 4,52,000/-) from the respondents jointly and severally. The insurance company must deposit this amount in the designated district bank account via RTGS/NEFT as per Supreme Court guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    Principal District Judge

  4. 06-Mar-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  5. 27-Jan-2026

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  6. 24-Dec-2025

    Summons - Notice

    Principal District Judge

  7. 21-Nov-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 21-Nov-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 1137/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Lok Adalat disposed of the motor accident compensation petition as compromised. The applicant and insurance company settled their dispute, with the applicant entitled to recover Rs. 8,82,000/- (including medical bills of Rs. 4,52,000/-) from the respondents jointly and severally. The insurance company must deposit this amount in the designated district bank account via RTGS/NEFT as per Supreme Court guidelines. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case