Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has awarded a compensation of Rs 53.70 lakh to family members of a 41-year-old man who died in a road mishap in 2014.
Tribunal member and district judge K D Vadane ordered Sushil Koli, owner of the offending vehicle, and insurance firm Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd to pay Sakshi (30), wife of deceased Santosh Thakare, and her two children, son (10) and daughter (2) and her mother-in-law Narmada D Thakare (63) Rs 53.70 lakh.
Of the total amount, Rs 15 lakh each will be deposited as FD in the names of the two children, the Judge ordered in the judgement pronounced recently.
The claimants' counsel told the Tribunal that Santosh was a government servant and worked as a health worker at Chinchani PHC in Palghar and drew a monthly salary of Rs 31,776.
On June 20, 2014, while the deceased was travelling to work on his motorcycle, a truck coming from opposite direction collided head-on with the two-wheeler near Kanchad village on Manor-Wada road, leaving him grievously injured, the counsel said.
Santosh died in hospital during treatment, the Tribunal was told.
It was also informed that the the driver of the truck ran away from the spot without securing any medical aid to the victim.
The two respondents challenged the age, service, salary of the deceased. They also came up with the argument that the mother of the deceased lived with her another son and hence was not not eligible for compensation.
The Judge in his order noted that from the contents of the FIR and the map of the spot of the accident it is clear that the accident had occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the driver of the truck.
"The opponents have not adduced any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the impugned accident occurred due to sole rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of tempo," the judge observed.
The Tribunal also stated that the defense could not prove that the deceased's mother lived with another son and hence not eligible for compensation.
Besides during cross-examination the driver stated that he had told the police that the deceased jumped before the bus and committed suicide. But the driver has not produced the copy of his statement recorded by police nor the copy of his statement recorded in the departmental enquiry initiated against him.
"Had it been the case that deceased would have jumped before the bus and committed suicide as deposed by the driver, he would have definitely produced his statements which would have seconded that the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, his evidence that deceased committed suicide by jumping before the bus is not believable," the judge said.
"Moreover, as observed earlier he does not dispute registering FIR and filing of final report/charge-sheet against him as he has admitted that he has made no complaint that false case is filed against him," the court said.
"Also, if really police would have filed a false case against the driver and even if the deceased had committed suicide as per the case of the opponent, driver of the offending bus would have definitely made a grievance about filing a false case against him by police, but no such grievance was made," it said.
"Therefore, also there is a reason to say that he is deposing about the deceased committing suicide just to save himself from the criminal liability in the case which is still pending against him in the court as deposed by him," it observed.
Therefore, his evidence is not sufficient to infer that there was no negligence on his part in the accident, it added.
Considering the arguments by both the applicants and the opponent the judge noted, "Besides the evidence of the applicant (widow) and son of the deceased regarding accidental death of the deceased certified copy of postmortem report shows that death of the deceased was caused due to head injury with fracture to skull.
Thus I hold that the applicants have proved that the death of deceased was caused in the accident arising out of the use of offending bus, due to rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver. Hence, they are entitled to compensation from the opponent.
