Asaram Umaji Panjage vs Arjun Annasaheb Yeole — 178/2022
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166,140. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 25th June 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHJN010019622022
Next Hearing
25th June 2026
Filing Number
896/2022
Filing Date
24-06-2022
Registration No
178/2022
Registration Date
28-06-2022
Court
District and Session Court , Jalna
Judge
14-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Asaram Umaji Panjage
Adv. PALLAVI KINGAONKAR
Janardhan Asaram Panjage
Adv. PALLAVI KINGAONKAR
Respondent(s)
Arjun Annasaheb Yeole
Cholamandlam M.S.G.I.C.Ltd.
Hearing History
Judge: 14-District Judge-2 and Addl. Sessions Judge
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 16-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 02-02-2026 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-12-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
| 12-11-2025 | Evidence Part Heard |
Interim Orders
Summary of Case 178/2022 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application (Exh.5) filed by Asaram Umaji Panjage and Janardhan Asaram Panjage seeking compensation for a death resulting from a motorcycle accident on 27.01.2022. The tribunal found that a prima facie case for NFL compensation was not established due to: (1) unexplained delay in lodging the FIR (27.01.2022 accident but FIR filed 07.03.2022); and (2) documentary inconsistencies—the involvement of another vehicle was not clearly established in the accident inquiry documents and the actual FIR was not placed on record. The tribunal held that whether another vehicle was involved remained in "shadow of doubt." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary of Case 178/2022 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application (Exh.5) filed by Asaram Umaji Panjage and Janardhan Asaram Panjage seeking compensation for a death resulting from a motorcycle accident on 27.01.2022. The tribunal found that a prima facie case for NFL compensation was not established due to: (1) unexplained delay in lodging the FIR (27.01.2022 accident but FIR filed 07.03.2022); and (2) documentary inconsistencies—the involvement of another vehicle was not clearly established in the accident inquiry documents and the actual FIR was not placed on record. The tribunal held that whether another vehicle was involved remained in "shadow of doubt." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts