Santosh Parihar vs Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Advocate - SASANKA SEKHAR NAHA — 252/2025

Case under Motor Vehicles Act Section 166. Status: Hearing of Petition. Next hearing: 15th June 2026.

Hearing of Petition Next hearing 15-Jun-2026 this date has passed

M A C C - M.A.C.C

CNR: WBUD050008032025

Filing Number

364/2025

Filing Date

22-May-2025

Registration No

252/2025

Registration Date

22-May-2025

Court

Additional District Judge, Islampore

Judge

4-ADJ II

Last updated 21-Mar-2026

Acts & Sections

Motor Vehicles Act Section 166

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Santosh Parihar

    Adv. Debjit Mandal

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd Advocate - SASANKA SEKHAR NAHA

Case History

  1. 15-Jun-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 06-Mar-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

    Summary: In MAC C/252/2025 (Santosh Parihar vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd), the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal adjourned the hearing for petition under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case was postponed to 15.06.2026 due to the absence of the opposite party owner despite repeated calls. The petitioner and insurance company appeared through their respective lawyers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 06-Mar-2026

    Hearing of Petition

    ADJ II

  4. 16-Jan-2026

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  5. 16-Jan-2026

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    ADJ

  6. 02-Sep-2025

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  7. 02-Sep-2025

    Sr/Ad/Appearence

    ADJ

  8. 22-May-2025

    Copy of OrderView PDF

  9. 22-May-2025

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 22-May-2025

    Case filed

    Registration No. 252/2025

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: In MAC C/252/2025 (Santosh Parihar vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd), the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal adjourned the hearing for petition under Section 159 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The case was postponed to 15.06.2026 due to the absence of the opposite party owner despite repeated calls. The petitioner and insurance company appeared through their respective lawyers. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case