The district motor accident claims tribunal has directed owner of a four-wheeler to pay compensation of Rs 36 lakh to the kin of a police constable, who lost his life after being hit by the vehicle in
The district motor accident claims tribunal has directed owner of a four-wheeler to pay compensation of Rs 36 lakh to the kin of a police constable, who lost his life after being hit by the vehicle in 2008. The tribunal absolved the insurance company from liability of paying the insurance, as the policy could not be proven to be genuine.
District Judge and Tribunal member K.D. Vadane in a recent order directed Santosh Mardhekar to pay Rs 36 lakh compensation to the family of Nandkumar Thakur (52).
Later, Thakur’s family moved the accident tribunal and submitted a copy of the insurance policy to prove that Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd insured the offending vehicle. It showed that the vehicle was insured with Chembur branch of insurance company and that the said policy was valid at the time of accident therefore, the firm was liable to pay the compensation amount.
The counsel for the family argued that Thakur worked as a head constable and drew a salary of Rs 35,823 per month at the time of incident. On March 22, 2013, a speeding four-wheeler hit Thakur when he was walking on the Mankurd-Ghatkopar Link road. He sustained serious wounds in the accident and succumbed during treatment on April 3.
He further said that the tribunal that the driver of the four-wheeler was solely responsible for the mishap. An offence was registered with the Deonar police station. They stated that Thakur’s family incurred an expense of Rs 13 lakh on his treatment.
On the other hand, counsel V.K. Pujari on behalf of insurance company argued and challenged the allegation of rash driving by the driver and that authenticity of the policy. The respondent counsel said that the policy taken by the vehicle owner was fake and was not issued by the insurance company. Hence, it was not responsible to pay any compensation. Mr Pujari also stated that they do not have any branch office in Chembur as stated by the claimants.
The judge observed, “It is pertinent to note that the officer of the insurance company in his evidence on affidavit contended that the vehicle is not insured with their insurance company, and the said policy was a false, fabricated one, and no such cover note or policy number exists nor it was issued by their insurance company.”
The judge also said that owner of the offending vehicle, though appeared, had failed to file his written statement. He has also not participated in the proceeding, nor adduced any evidence in support of the plea that he has obtained the policy of the offending vehicle. The judge than directed the owner to pay a compensation of Rs 36 lakh to the family.
