Absolving the insurance company in a 2008 road mishap case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal here ordered the owner of the killer vehicle to pay a compensation of Rs 11 lakh to the deceased's kins.
In his order, Judge M M Walimohammed freed Insurance company Iffco Tokio GIC Ltd of all the charges and ordered the owner of the vehicle, Chintamani B Patil, to pay the entire sum to the family of the deceased including his aged parents.
The case relates to one Bhupesh Pujari, who was in his 30s and owned a electrical shop at Shantinagar in Wagle Estate. According to the claimant, he was earning an income of Rs 15,000 per month from the shop.
It was on October 23, 2008 at about 11.30 pm, when he was proceeding on Saket road on his two-wheeler along with his friend, when the vehicle owned by Patil came from the opposite side and hit them.
Subsequently, while undergoing treatment at a hospital in Pune, he died on November 23, 2008.
His family comprising his widow Savita Pujari (24), her son Yashraj (1), father Laxman Pujari (63) and mother Hirabai (56) lodged a claim of Rs 60 lakh which included Rs 20 lakh incurred as medical expenses besides compensation for loss of love and affection, estate, consortium, and mental shock as well as grief and pain.
According to the Insurance company's counsel K V Poojari, Patil's vehicle was insured with them during the time of the accident but the driver did not possess a valid licence to drive the heavy vehicle. Hence it was not liable to pay the compensation.
So, compensation has to be borne by the owner of the vehicle, the company submitted in the court.
The judge after hearing both the claimant and respondent, observed that "the fact of non possession of valid licence on the date of accident for which the burden was shifted on the insurer, has been discharged. Therefore, in this case respondent owner of the vehicle is to be held responsible."
"The income of Rs 15,000 per month as submitted by the claimants would depend on the capital invested, business loss fluctuations in the prices, daily collection etc.
Besides there is no documentary evidence either bill book, account book, ledger, income tax returns (to substantiate it). Therefore in view of the facts and circumstances income of Rs 8,000 per month from the said business could be just and proper," the order said.
