HAMUBHAI LOMABHAI BHUVA vs JAYSUKHBHAI HIRABHAI JAMOD — 185/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Uncontested--LOK ADALAT on 14th March 2026.
MACP - MAC PETITION
CNR: GJRJ010006862025
Filing Number
185/2025
Filing Date
24-Jan-2025
Registration No
185/2025
Registration Date
24-Jan-2025
Court
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT RAJKOT
Judge
5-5th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
14-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Uncontested--LOK ADALAT
Last updated 16-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.HAMUBHAI LOMABHAI BHUVA
Adv. S J GOHIL
Respondent(s)
-
1.JAYSUKHBHAI HIRABHAI JAMOD
-
2.HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
Adv. J.M.DAVE
-
3.VINODBHAI MANJIBHAI RATHOD
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
14-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Summary The Rajkot Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Lok-Adalat) approved a compromise settlement ordering the insurance company to pay Rs. 10,50,000 as final compensation to the claimant. The payment structure requires 50% to be paid immediately by crossed cheque and the remaining 50% to be deposited in a nationalized bank for five years, with restrictions on borrowing against the deposit but allowing interest withdrawal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
14-Mar-2026
Disposed
5th Addl District Judge
-
11-Mar-2026
Summons - Notice
5th Addl District Judge
-
03-Dec-2025
Summons - Notice
7th Addl District Judge
-
30-Sep-2025
Summons - Notice
7th Addl District Judge
-
12-Aug-2025
Summons - Notice
8th Addl District Judge
-
05-Jul-2025
Summons - Notice
8th Addl District Judge
-
16-Apr-2025
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
24-Jan-2025
Case filed
Registration No. 185/2025
Summary The Rajkot Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Lok-Adalat) approved a compromise settlement ordering the insurance company to pay Rs. 10,50,000 as final compensation to the claimant. The payment structure requires 50% to be paid immediately by crossed cheque and the remaining 50% to be deposited in a nationalized bank for five years, with restrictions on borrowing against the deposit but allowing interest withdrawal. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts