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

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

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...