Skip to main content

Compensation halved as biker killed in mishap wasn’t wearing helmet

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Wednesday halved the compensation to be paid to the kin of a biker who died on being hit by a cab in 2009, after it found he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the mishap. While the actual compensation worked out by the tribunal amounted to Rs 12.30 lakh, owing to the biker Jamil Shaikh's (23) contributory negligence, his family was awarded a compensation of Rs 6.15 lakh. The fleet cab company and the insurance firm will additionally have to pay Rs 2.30 lakh in interest.

Observing that the cab driver was not solely responsible for the accident , the tribunal said, "The unfortunate death of the deceased must be attributed to the non-wearing of a protective headgear by him, as his death has been found to have been caused by haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. The deceased should be held to have definitely contributed to his death by not wearing protective headgear while riding a motorcycle on a public road."

Shaikh is survived by his wife, mother and a five-year-old son, all of whom filed the application before the tribunal in November 2009. The family alleged that on August 28, 2009, at about 6.15am when Shaikh was riding his bike at Vikhroli, he was hit by the cab, which the family claimed was driven negligently and was speeding. A case was registered against the driver with the Vikhroli police. The family said Shaikh worked at an amusement park at Thane and earned a monthly salary of Rs 8,000.

The insurance company submitted that it was not liable to pay the amount as Shaikh had brought upon the accident himself, as he halted without giving any signal or any indication. It alleged that he gave virtually no chance to the driver of the cab to maneuver the vehicle to avert the impact.

The tribunal however, relied on the statement of the witness who had found Shaikh lying injured by the side of his motorcycle. The witness said the bike was badly damaged at both ends and the cab was damaged in the front. The tribunal observed that the FIR clearly pointed to rash and negligent driving on the part of the cab driver. "I must, therefore, hold that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor taxi and non-wearing of protective headgear by the deceased in breach of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act," the tribunal said.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Tribunal-halves-compensation-to-kin-as-biker-killed-in-mishap-wasnt-wearing-helmet/articleshow/40310481.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Partition proceedings are vitiated even if single co-sharer is not made party or is not served in accordance with law

Cause Title :  Bhagwant Singh vs  Financial Commissioner (Appeals) Punjab, Chandigarh,  CWP-2132-2018 (O&M), High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Judgment/Order : 31.08.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Mittal Background A large parcel of land was owned by the Nagar Panchayat. Thereafter, some of the co-sharers sold their shares to third parties including the petitioners herein. On 22.11.1995, respondents No.3 to 5 filed an application for partition of the land. The petitioners were not impleaded as parties.  On completion of proceedings, sanad was issued on 28.08.1996. Vide two separate sale deeds dated 28.05.2008 respondents No.3 and 5 sold some portion in favour of respondent No.6 and 7. These respondents sought implementation of the sanad resulting in issuance of warrants of possession dated 05.06.2008. Allegedly, it was then that the petitioners realized that joint land had been partitioned and that proceedings h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power of Attorney holder can also file cheque bounce cases: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a criminal complaint in a cheque bounce case can be filed and pursued by a person who holds a power of attorney (PoA) on behalf of the complainant. A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam gave the "authoritative" pronouncement on the issue, referred to it by a division bench in view of conflicting judgements of some high courts and the apex court. "We are of the view that the power of attorney holder may be allowed to file, appear and depose for the purpose of issue of process for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (which deals with cheque bounce cases)," the bench, also comprising justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Ranjan Gogoi, said. The bench, in its judgement, said, "...we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: "Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act through PoA holder is perfectly legal...
1 comment
Read more

Christian who reconverts as Hindu SC will get quota benefits

Amid the controversy over “ghar wapsi”, the Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that a person who “reconverts” from Christianity to Hinduism shall be entitled to reservation benefits if his forefathers belonged to a Scheduled Caste and the community accepts him after “reconversion”. Citing articles by B R Ambedkar and James Massey, and reports by Mandal Commission and Chinappa Commission, the court said: “There has been detailed study to indicate the Scheduled Caste persons belonging to Hindu religion, who had embraced Christianity with some kind of hope or aspiration, have remained socially, educationally and economically backward.” The bench of Justices Dipak Misra and V Gopala Gowda held that a person shall not be deprived of reservation benefits if he decides to “reconvert” to Hinduism and adopts the caste that his forefathers originally belonged to just because he was born to Christian parents or has a Christian spouse. Expanding the scope of a previous Constitution benc...
1 comment
Read more