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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more