Bhaskar Rajaram Narkar etc. 2 vs Mithila Mahesh Redij etc. 3 Advocate - Chile Arun Anant — 16/2021
Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166,. Status: Evidence Part Heard. Next hearing: 08th June 2026.
M.A.C.P. - Motor Accident Claim Petition
CNR: MHRT010004842021
Next Hearing
08th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
317/2021
Filing Date
05-08-2021
Registration No
16/2021
Registration Date
09-08-2021
Court
District and session court , Ratnagiri
Judge
4-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Bhaskar Rajaram Narkar etc. 2
Adv. Shirgaonkar Amit Anant
Bharti Bhaskar Narkar
Respondent(s)
Mithila Mahesh Redij etc. 3 Advocate - Chile Arun Anant
Mahesh Vishwanath Redij
Adv. Chile Arun Anant
Bhakti Pravin Narkar
Hearing History
Judge: 4-Adhoc District Judge-1 and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri.
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Evidence Part Heard
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 22-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 08-04-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 10-03-2026 | Evidence Part Heard | |
| 04-03-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 13-02-2026 | Order on Exh |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ratnagiri allowed the applicants' application to exhibit a vehicle clearance certificate copy (Exh No.7 Sr. No.6) as evidence in a motor accident claim proceeding. Although opponents argued the xerox copy lacked proper authentication and that RTO officers should have been examined as witnesses, the court found that since the opponents did not specifically deny the certificate's authenticity and it contained verifiable QR codes and portal information, exhibiting the document would not prejudice them and serves the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ratnagiri allowed the applicants' application to exhibit a vehicle clearance certificate copy (Exh No.7 Sr. No.6) as evidence in a motor accident claim proceeding. Although opponents argued the xerox copy lacked proper authentication and that RTO officers should have been examined as witnesses, the court found that since the opponents did not specifically deny the certificate's authenticity and it contained verifiable QR codes and portal information, exhibiting the document would not prejudice them and serves the interest of justice. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts