NITABEN AMRUTBHAI RAVAL vs VIVEK CHINTUKUMAR LALVANI Advocate - P D BRAHMBHATT — 430/2025

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

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJMH010041272025

Filing Number

430/2025

Filing Date

20-Dec-2025

Registration No

430/2025

Registration Date

20-Dec-2025

Court

DISTRICT COURT MAHESANA

Judge

5-4th Addl District Judge

Decision Date

14-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

Uncontested--LOK ADALAT

Last updated 16-Apr-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.NITABEN AMRUTBHAI RAVAL

    Adv. P P RAVAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VIVEK CHINTUKUMAR LALVANI Advocate - P D BRAHMBHATT

  2. 2.LALVANI DHANESHBHAI RAMESHBHAI

    Adv. P D BRAHMBHATT

  3. 3.TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

    Adv. N R BHAVSAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 14-Mar-2026

    Order

    Summary The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Mahesana disposed of the insurance claim through a compromise settlement on 14th March, 2026. The tribunal approved the applicant's acceptance of Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation from Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., with 60% to be invested in a fixed deposit for 5 years and 40% disbursed via account payee cheque, with restrictions on pledging the FD without tribunal permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 14-Mar-2026

    Disposed

    4th Addl District Judge

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Written Statement/Reply

    4th Addl District Judge

  5. 31-Jan-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 20-Dec-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 430/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Mahesana disposed of the insurance claim through a compromise settlement on 14th March, 2026. The tribunal approved the applicant's acceptance of Rs. 5,00,000/- compensation from Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., with 60% to be invested in a fixed deposit for 5 years and 40% disbursed via account payee cheque, with restrictions on pledging the FD without tribunal permission. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case