Vijay Shankarrao Wankhede vs The TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Advocate - Adv. Choube — 792/2025
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Reply/Say. Next hearing: 11th June 2026.
M.A.C.P.
CNR: MHNG010079122025
Next Hearing
11th June 2026
Filing Number
4784/2025
Filing Date
26-06-2025
Registration No
792/2025
Registration Date
07-07-2025
Court
District and Session Court , Nagpur
Judge
30-M.A.C.T. COURT NO.1
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Vijay Shankarrao Wankhede
Adv. L.K.Ramteke
Sunita Shankarrao Wankhede
Pratik Shankarrao Wankhede
Respondent(s)
The TATA AIG Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. Advocate - Adv. Choube
Pratik Sunil Rahate
Hearing History
Judge: 30-M.A.C.T. COURT NO.1
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Reply/Say
Amended Plaint
Order
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 17-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 09-04-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 25-03-2026 | Reply/Say |
| 10-03-2026 | Amended Plaint |
| 24-02-2026 | Order |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur allowed the application filed by Vaishali under Order 1 Rule 10 to be added as a party to the motor accident compensation claim. The tribunal found prima facie evidence (Aadhar card, marriage photographs, newspaper report, compromise deed, and bank statement showing ₹2,50,000 credited by the deceased's employer) establishing her marital relationship with the deceased, making her a necessary party to the proceedings. The original petitioners were directed to amend the petition to include Vaishali as a party and file the amended plaint at the earliest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-1, Nagpur allowed the application filed by Vaishali under Order 1 Rule 10 to be added as a party to the motor accident compensation claim. The tribunal found prima facie evidence (Aadhar card, marriage photographs, newspaper report, compromise deed, and bank statement showing ₹2,50,000 credited by the deceased's employer) establishing her marital relationship with the deceased, making her a necessary party to the proceedings. The original petitioners were directed to amend the petition to include Vaishali as a party and file the amended plaint at the earliest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts