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

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more