JAYESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI RAVAL vs VIVEK CHINTUKUMAR LALVANI Advocate - P D BRAHMBHATT — 432/2025

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

Case disposed

MACP - MAC PETITION

CNR: GJMH010041292025

Filing Number

432/2025

Filing Date

20-Dec-2025

Registration No

432/2025

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.JAYESHBHAI BHIKHABHAI 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

    OrderView PDF

    The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Mahesana disposed of the matter through compromise settlement, awarding Rs. 3,00,000 compensation from Tata AIG General Insurance Company to the applicant. The settlement mandates 60% of the amount be invested in a 5-year fixed deposit (with tribunal restrictions on pledging) and 40% paid via account payee cheque, with court fees to be refunded under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 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. 432/2025

casestatus.in Summary

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) at Mahesana disposed of the matter through compromise settlement, awarding Rs. 3,00,000 compensation from Tata AIG General Insurance Company to the applicant. The settlement mandates 60% of the amount be invested in a 5-year fixed deposit (with tribunal restrictions on pledging) and 40% paid via account payee cheque, with court fees to be refunded under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

High Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case