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

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

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

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more