Parents of accident victim get Rs nine lakh compensation
Parents of a 26-year-old youth, who died in a road accident involving a rashly driven truck, have been awarded a compensation of Rs nine lakh by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here.
New Delhi: Parents of a 26-year-old youth, who died in a road accident involving a rashly driven truck, have been awarded a compensation of Rs nine lakh by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here.
The tribunal directed IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Company, insurer of the offending truck, to pay Rs nine lakh to the parents of Ghaziabad resident Amit Kumar.
Amit, who was riding his motorcycle when he was hit by a rashly driven truck near Kalindi Kunj here in 2013, succumbed to injuries six days later.
The tribunal relied on the testimony of Amit`s father Kamal Singh while awarding the compensation and noted that his statement supported the police investigation.
It also noted that the driver, owner and insurer of the truck had not led any contrary evidence in their defence.
"In view of these circumstances, petitioners (Amit`s parents) have been able to prove that deceased (Amit) suffered fatal injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck," MACT Presiding Officer Ajay Kumar Jain said.
According to the petition filed by Singh and his wife Kamlesh, on November 10, 2013, their son Amit was riding his motorcycle and when he reached Yamuna Pul near Kalindi Kunj in south Delhi, a rashly driven truck hit him from the back side.
Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where he died six days later, it said.
His parents, while seeking compensation, claimed that Amit was working as a driver and earned a monthly income of Rs 12,000. The tribunal, however, re-assessed his income at Rs 5,000 on the basis of minimum wages of a skilled labour in Noida, as his parents couldn`t prove the claimed salary.
The driver and the owner of the truck denied the accident through their written statements. The insurance company filed a legal offer during proceedings but it was not accepted by the petitioners.