Sidharth Popat Gaikwad vs Palhare Dnyaneshwar Ankush Advocate - Chudiwal B. F. — 65/2018
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166,140. Status: Dismissal Order. Next hearing: 30th April 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHAH130008372018
Next Hearing
30th April 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
304/2018
Filing Date
07-12-2018
Registration No
65/2018
Registration Date
07-12-2018
Court
District and Sessions Court, Newasa.
Judge
1-Dist. Judge-1 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Sidharth Popat Gaikwad
Adv. Khildkar R. D.
Rama Siddharth Gaikwad
Adv. Khildkar R. D.
Respondent(s)
Palhare Dnyaneshwar Ankush Advocate - Chudiwal B. F.
Raju Laxman Admane
Hearing History
Judge: 1-Dist. Judge-1 And Addl. Sessions Judge, Newasa
Dismissal Order
Evidence
Evidence
A. D. R.
A. D. R.
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 08-04-2026 | Dismissal Order | |
| 09-03-2026 | Evidence | |
| 14-02-2026 | Evidence | |
| 15-01-2026 | A. D. R. | |
| 15-12-2025 | A. D. R. |
Interim Orders
Summary The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed the claimants' interim application for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident on 21.12.2016 that resulted in the death of their 4-year-old daughter. The court ordered respondents (vehicle owner and driver) to pay Rs. 50,000 as interim compensation under the "No Fault Liability" (NFL) head within one month, with 7% interest if payment is delayed. The respondent owner failed to appear and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) allowed the claimants' interim application for compensation arising from a motor vehicle accident on 21.12.2016 that resulted in the death of their 4-year-old daughter. The court ordered respondents (vehicle owner and driver) to pay Rs. 50,000 as interim compensation under the "No Fault Liability" (NFL) head within one month, with 7% interest if payment is delayed. The respondent owner failed to appear and the case proceeded ex-parte against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts