Def Min to pay Rs 9L compensation to road mishap victim`s kin
The Defence Ministry has been directed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to pay nearly Rs nine lakh to the family of a man who died in a road accident caused by a rashly driven defence gypsy here.
New Delhi: The Defence Ministry has been directed by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) to pay nearly Rs nine lakh to the family of a man who died in a road accident caused by a rashly driven defence gypsy here.
The court directed the Ministry to pay Rs 8,95,428 to the parents of 23-year-old Naveen Kumar saying that since the offending vehicle belonged to the ministry, it was the "principal tort feasor" (wrongdoer).
The tribunal also directed the ministry to pay Rs 2,48,683 as compensation to Dalip Kumar, who was also with Naveen on the same motorcycle and had suffered multiple injuries in the accident.
"Naveen Kumar, deceased, and Dalip Kumar met with an accident with Maruti Gypsy which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed... as a result of which Naveen died and Dalip received injuries.
"Since the vehicle was owned by respondent no. 2 (Ministry of Defence) therefore they are primarily responsible to make the payment..." MACT Presiding Officer Deepak Jagotra said.
Dalip and Ramesh Kumar, father of the deceased, filed a petition with the tribunal, seeking compensation and submitted that the accident took place on the night of July 3, 2009 when Naveen and Dalip were going to their office on a motorcycle.
When they were crossing the Air Force Station Palam, Delhi Cantonment area, a speeding Maruti Gypsy hit the motorcycle with great force, Dalip had deposed.
Due to the impact, they both fell down and were taken to a hospital where Naveen died the next day.
Dalip, 25, was working in a private company in south Delhi on a salary of Rs 7,100 per month while Naveen was earning Rs 7,700 in the same company.
The tribunal also said that Dhirendra Kumar Yadav, the accused who was driving the offending vehicle, could not prove that he was not negligent at the time of the accident.