Smt. Sarika wd/o Sunil Mali vs Pankaj s/o Manohar Deshmukh, — 46/2023
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Evidence. Next hearing: 10th April 2026.
M.A.C.P.
CNR: MHAK010007992023
Next Hearing
10th April 2026
Filing Number
482/2023
Filing Date
27-02-2023
Registration No
46/2023
Registration Date
03-03-2023
Court
District and Session Court , Akola
Judge
4-District Judge III Akola
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Smt. Sarika wd/o Sunil Mali
Adv. Sharma A.D.
Ku. Sejal d/o Sunil Mali.
Ku. Tutika d/o Sunil Mali.
Respondent(s)
Pankaj s/o Manohar Deshmukh,
Manohar G Deshmukh.
United India Insurance Company Ltd, through its Divisional Manager.
Hearing History
Judge: 4-District Judge III Akola
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | Evidence |
| 30-01-2026 | Evidence |
| 24-12-2025 | Evidence |
| 24-11-2025 | Evidence |
| 17-10-2025 | Evidence |
Interim Orders
Summary: The District Court of Akola rejected United India Insurance Company's application to amend its written statement by adding a limitation defense to a motor vehicle compensation claim petition. The court held that since the underlying accident occurred on 28.07.2016 (prior to the effective date of amended Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act), the petition filed on 27.02.2023 remained maintainable despite exceeding the six-month filing period, and the limitation issue had already been decided in a previous order. The application (Exh.21) was hereby rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The District Court of Akola rejected United India Insurance Company's application to amend its written statement by adding a limitation defense to a motor vehicle compensation claim petition. The court held that since the underlying accident occurred on 28.07.2016 (prior to the effective date of amended Section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act), the petition filed on 27.02.2023 remained maintainable despite exceeding the six-month filing period, and the limitation issue had already been decided in a previous order. The application (Exh.21) was hereby rejected. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts