Skip to main content

Family of accident victim gets Rs 46 lakh compensation - MACT

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Pune, has awarded a compensation of Rs 46.26 lakh to the husband and 13-year-old son of a 39-year-old woman who was killed in a road accident on the old Pune-Mumbai highway at Pimpri in 2009. They had filed a claim of Rs 40 lakh and the MACT awarded more compensation considering age and earning capacity of the deceased.

MACT member N P Dhote ordered that the compensation be jointly paid by the truck's owner Aruna Jadhav of Pimpri and The Oriental Insurance Company Limited with seven percent interest from the date of filing the petition in 2010 till the realisation of the amount.

The deceased, Swita Devraju (39) of Chinchwad, was serving as a teacher with Hindustan Antibiotics School. She was a permanent employee and earned Rs 26,595 per month. On December 7, 2009, Swita and her friend Asha Bansode were going to Chinchwad via the old Pune-Mumbai highway. Swita was driving the two-wheeler. At around 5.30 pm , a truck came from behind and hit the two-wheeler. Swita died while Bansode sustained injuries.

Based on Bansode's complaint, the Pimpri police station had arrested the truck driver for rash and negligent driving.

In March 2010, Swita's husband Venkatrayyappa (46) and their son Prathmesh moved the MACT seeking Rs 40 lakh compensation. Advocate K K Bandal represented the family.

The truck owner did not appear before the tribunal while the insurance company submitted that the deceased herself was responsible for the accident due to her rash and negligent driving.

However, the judge observed that the accident took place in the middle of a 40-ft wide road and it was not dark at the time of incident.

The judgement said that the truck driver was responsible for rash and negligent driving. While driving heavy vehicle, more particularly on roads passing through cities, extra care is required to be taken. Considering the vicarious liabilty of the truck owner and the insurance company, they have to jointly pay the compensation amount".

Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/Family-of-accident-victim-gets-Rs-46-lakh-compensation/articleshow/20830992.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more