LATE VIJAYKUMAR ARVINDBHAI PARMAR(Legal Heir) vs GO DIGIT GENRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — 22/2026
Case under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166. Disposed: Contested--ALLOWED on 05th March 2026.
MACMA - MAC MISC. APPLICATION
CNR: GJVD200001792026
Filing Number
22/2026
Filing Date
25-Feb-2026
Registration No
22/2026
Registration Date
25-Feb-2026
Court
ADDL. COURT-SAVLI
Judge
2-9th Addl District Judge
Decision Date
05-Mar-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--ALLOWED
Last updated 10-Mar-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.LATE VIJAYKUMAR ARVINDBHAI PARMAR(Legal Heir)
Adv. K B SHARMA1.
-
2.ARVINDBHAI GABABHAI PARMAR 1.
-
3.SAROJBEN ARVINDBHAI PARMAR 1.
-
4.MINOR MITESHKUMAR ARVINDBHAI PARMAR
Respondent(s)
-
1.GO DIGIT GENRAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
05-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
-
05-Mar-2026
OrderView PDF
Court Decision Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara allowed the heirs of deceased Vijaykumar Parmar to withdraw fixed deposits totaling Rs. 7,28,000 held with State Bank of India for house construction. The tribunal applied Supreme Court guidelines distinguishing literate claimants from minors and illiterates, exercising discretion to permit withdrawal based on the applicants' legitimate need to construct a new house estimated at Rs. 6,58,950, reasoning that denying access would force them to take expensive bank loans. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
05-Mar-2026
Disposed
9th Addl District Judge
-
25-Feb-2026
Case filed
Registration No. 22/2026
Court Decision Summary The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Vadodara allowed the heirs of deceased Vijaykumar Parmar to withdraw fixed deposits totaling Rs. 7,28,000 held with State Bank of India for house construction. The tribunal applied Supreme Court guidelines distinguishing literate claimants from minors and illiterates, exercising discretion to permit withdrawal based on the applicants' legitimate need to construct a new house estimated at Rs. 6,58,950, reasoning that denying access would force them to take expensive bank loans. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts