Tribunal awards Rs 23 lakh to parents of accident victim

PUNE: A motor accident claims tribunal has directed the driver, owner and insurer of a tempo to jointly and severally pay Rs 22.99 lakh compensation to the dependant parents of a 22-year-old private company employee who was killed in an accident near Loni station on Pune-Solapur Road in April 2014.

S H Gwalani, MACT member, ruled that a 9% p.a. interest will apply to the compensation amount from the date of filing of the petition till actual payment is made. The interest amount so far works out to over Rs 7.24 lakh. The claimants will have to pay the deficit court fees on account of enhanced compensation and interest amount, the tribunal ruled.

The victim, Swapnil Ghule, died of severe injuries suffered after his motorcycle was hit from behind by a rashly driven tempo near Loni station on April 8, 2014 (see box). Satish K. Bansode of

Malshiras

in

Solapur

district was driving the tempo, which was owned by Dattatraya V. Jagdale, also from Malshiras. The Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance

Company Limited at

Erandwane

in Pune had provided insurance cover to the tempo.

The insurance company had contested the claim, arguing that the mishap was a case of contributory negligence and that the claim amount was exaggerated. It further argued that the driver of the tempo was not holding a valid licence which was a breach of policy terms. As such, the insurer was not liable to pay compensation.

The tribunal, however, relied on oral evidence recorded by the victim’s mother which stood corroborated by the police investigation papers such as the FIR, spot and inquest panchanama, medical notification of death and form AA to establish that only the tempo driver was at fault, resulting in Swapnil’s death. It observed that nothing was brought on record during cross-examination by the insurance firm’s lawyer to show that it was a case of contributory negligence.

The tribunal further observed that despite sufficient opportunities no oral or documentary evidence was produced to prove that the tempo driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. On the other hand, the claimants produced form AA which indicated that the driver was having a valid licence issued by RTO, Akluj, and the FIR too had no reference that the driver had no valid driving licence.