Delhi youth suffers disability, gets 34 lakh compensation
A youth, who was hit by a rashly driven truck in 2012 and suffered 85 per cent permanent disability due to amputation of his right leg, has been awarded a compensation of over Rs 34 lakh by a motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) here.
New Delhi: A youth, who was hit by a rashly driven truck in 2012 and suffered 85 per cent permanent disability due to amputation of his right leg, has been awarded a compensation of over Rs 34 lakh by a motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) here.
MACT Presiding Officer Ajay Kumar Jain asked Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd, with which the offending truck was insured, to pay compensation of Rs 34,08,612 to 20-year- old Ram Kumar who had suffered grievous injuries after being hit by the truck here.
According to the petition, on June 6, 2012, Kumar and his brother reached Okhla where a truck driven in a rash and negligent manner hit them. Kumar suffered injuries and was taken to AIIMS trauma center.
The tribunal, in its order, relied on a March 1 report issued by the medical board of a hospital which was of the opinion that Kumar had suffered 85 per cent permanent disability due to amputation of his right lower limb above knee.
During the adjudication of the plea, the insurance firm contended before the tribunal that truck`s owner breached the terms and condition of the insurance policy and the driver was not holding any licence at the time of accident so it was not liable to pay any compensation.
The counsel, appearing for the insurance company, also said that Kumar was walking in the middle of road and the accident was caused due to his own negligence.
The tribunal, however, dismissed the contentions of the insurance firm saying, "Insurance company (was) unable to prove this fact through positive evidence. Furthermore, driver was not examined to substantiate the fact that accident (was) caused due to the negligence of the petitioner (Kumar)."
"In view of the above discussion (in the order), further as no contrary evidence came against the petitioner (Kumar), it stands proved that the petitioner had suffered injuries due to rash and negligent driving of respondent number 1 (truck driver)," the MACT said, adding, "it cannot be inferred that accident (was) caused due to self negligence of petitioner."