Chhaya Maruti Pokharkar And Other 2 vs Razak Mohd Shaikh And do Digit Gen Ins Advocate - — 1487/2024
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166, Fatal. Status: For ISSUES. Next hearing: 10th June 2026.
MACP - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHMT010017362024
Next Hearing
10th June 2026
Filing Number
1756/2024
Filing Date
20-07-2024
Registration No
1487/2024
Registration Date
22-08-2024
Court
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
Judge
1-H. H. Chairman
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Chhaya Maruti Pokharkar And Other 2
Adv. Mehta U. N.
Respondent(s)
Razak Mohd Shaikh And do Digit Gen Ins Advocate -
Khan T.
Golande S.D.
Go Digit Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd.
Adv. Golande S. D.
Hearing History
Judge: 1-H. H. Chairman
For ISSUES
For ISSUES
For ISSUES
AMEND PLAINT
SAY HEARING ON EXH.____READY
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 14-03-2026 | For ISSUES |
| 12-03-2026 | For ISSUES |
| 23-02-2026 | For ISSUES |
| 30-01-2026 | AMEND PLAINT |
| 20-01-2026 | SAY HEARING ON EXH.____READY |
Interim Orders
MACP No. 1487/2024 - Summary The application seeking amendment to implead the deceased's married sisters (Mrs. Punam Abhijit Dumbare and Mrs. Neelam Maruti Pokharkar) as co-claimants was rejected. The court held that since Class-I legal heirs (wife, minor son, and mother) are already parties and contesting the claim, adding the married sisters—who showed no financial dependency and whose presence is unnecessary for effective adjudication—would only complicate proceedings without legal benefit. Motor Vehicles Act compensation is primarily payable for loss of dependency, not mere legal representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
MACP No. 1487/2024 - Summary The application seeking amendment to implead the deceased's married sisters (Mrs. Punam Abhijit Dumbare and Mrs. Neelam Maruti Pokharkar) as co-claimants was rejected. The court held that since Class-I legal heirs (wife, minor son, and mother) are already parties and contesting the claim, adding the married sisters—who showed no financial dependency and whose presence is unnecessary for effective adjudication—would only complicate proceedings without legal benefit. Motor Vehicles Act compensation is primarily payable for loss of dependency, not mere legal representation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts