Skip to main content

Where there is no eyewitness, issue to be decided on evidence and documents - MACT

A motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) here has directed the United India Insurance Company to pay Rs 6.25 lakh compensation to the relatives of a 40-year old woman who was killed in a road accident near Vitthal Mandir on Dhanori Road on October 2012.

The tribunal, presided over by district judge N P Dhote, relied on cogent material evidence furnished by police while rejecting the insurance firm's claim that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the motorcyclist whose vehicle hit the woman, Rekha Sandip Sutar, causing her death. The company had insured the motorcycle.

Rekha had alighted from an autorickshaw near Vitthal Mandir on Dhanori Road when she was hit by a motorcycle around 12.30pm on October 31, 2012. She sustained multiple injuries and was admitted to the Sassoon Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries around 3.30pm, the same day. In the ensuing probe by the Vishrantwadi police, an offence of rash and negligent driving was registered against the motorcyclist Ganesh D Shinde.

Rekha's husband, Sandip (47), two children, Nikhil (20) and Savita (18), jointly filed a claim petition through their lawyer Ashish Patni, before the MACT on December 1, 2012 demanding compensation of Rs 7 lakh with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from Shinde and the insurance firm. While the case proceeding against Shinde was conducted ex parte, the insurance firm opposed the claim on the grounds that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving by Shinde.

In an order passed recently, judge Dhote observed that none of the parties examined any eyewitness. As such, the issue ought to be decided on the basis of cogent material evidence or documents on record. Police papers relating to the investigation were not contested by either parties and hence were relied upon for establishing the charge of rash and negligent driving.

The court observed that there was nothing to show that the accident happened due to reason beyond the control of the motorcyclist or any mechanical defect in the bike. On the contrary, spot panchanama and other investigation papers indicated rash and negligent driving by the motorcyclist.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/City/Pune/Insurer-told-to-pay-Rs-6-25-lakh-to-accident-victims-kin/articleshow/45041043.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