Skip to main content

Senior citizen gets 5L compensation in accident case. "Public place" defined

A senior citizen was awarded a compensation of Rs 5.13 lakh by the Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Monday. The 73-year-old woman had lost one of her legs after a speeding car ran over her in her housing complex in 2011.

Sessions court judge S Y Kulkarni ordered Sweety Jitendra Shah, who was the owner of the car, and National Insurance Company to jointly pay the compensation to the victim with a 7% interest within a period of one month. If they fail to do so, then they will have to pay an additional 2% interest till realization, the judge said.

The case dates to January 24, 2011, when the victim, Gumphabai Patil, was sitting in her building garden, along with her grandchildren, at 4.45pm when Sweety's driver lost control of the car and rammed into Patil. Since the car ran over her legs, Patil sustained severe injuries and her left leg had to be amputated.

While Sweety was not present for the proceedings, the insurance company argued that the claim was not tenable as the place where the accident took place was not a public area and the driver did not have a valid license.

However, the forum dismissed both the submissions and awarded the compensation to the senior citizen. The insurance company, in its submission, said that the accident had not taken place in a public place as contemplated in the Motor Vehicles Act. So, the application was not tenable and liable to be dismissed.

But the judge said, ''The scope of definition of public places under the act is wide enough to include any place that members of public use and to which they have a right of access. The right of access may be permissive, limited, restricted or regulated by oral or written permission by tickets, passes or badges or on payment of fees."

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/thane/Senior-citizen-gets-5L-compensation-in-accident-case/articleshow/45181359.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

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