Baburao Laxman Bawaskar vs Dilip Jaysing Jadhao — 100/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING on 12th March 2026.
M.A.C.P.
CNR: MHBU110002142021
Filing Number
66/2021
Filing Date
04-02-2021
Registration No
100/2021
Registration Date
04-02-2021
Court
District and Sessions Judge, Malkapur
Judge
1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge
Decision Date
12th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED / REJECTED AFTER FULL TRIAL / HEARING
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Baburao Laxman Bawaskar
Adv. Pathan MY
Respondent(s)
Dilip Jaysing Jadhao
ICICI Lombard General Insruance Com.Ltd.
Adv. Pachpor NH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Judge-1 Addl. Sess. Judge
Disposed
Judgment
Judgment
Arguments
Arguments
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 12-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 11-03-2026 | Judgment |
| 25-02-2026 | Judgment |
| 11-02-2026 | Arguments |
| 21-01-2026 | Arguments |
Final Orders / Judgements
Summary: The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal dismissed Baburao Bawaskar's petition for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While the court found that the opposite party's motorcycle rider drove recklessly and caused the accident resulting in the petitioner's serious injuries (displaced fractures), it rejected the claim because the petitioner failed to prove permanent disability through medical evidence—mere assertion without doctor certification was insufficient. Additionally, since the petitioner's own insured motorcycle was involved in the accident, he was deemed a contracting party to the insurance, not a third party entitled to compensation under Section 163A. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Interim Orders
Summary: The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal dismissed Baburao Bawaskar's petition for compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While the court found that the opposite party's motorcycle rider drove recklessly and caused the accident resulting in the petitioner's serious injuries (displaced fractures), it rejected the claim because the petitioner failed to prove permanent disability through medical evidence—mere assertion without doctor certification was insufficient. Additionally, since the petitioner's own insured motorcycle was involved in the accident, he was deemed a contracting party to the insurance, not a third party entitled to compensation under Section 163A. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts