A man has been directed to pay Rs 10.93 lakh as compensation to a woman and her mother-in-law in a road mishap case of 2010 by district Motor Accident and Claims Tribunal (MACT), while absolved the insurance firm of the liability
Thane: A man has been directed to pay Rs 10.93 lakh as compensation to a woman and her mother-in-law in a road mishap case of 2010 by district Motor Accident and Claims Tribunal (MACT), while absolved the insurance firm of the liability.
ADVERTISEMENT
District Judge K D Vadane in his judgement pronounced recently stated that one of the respondents, previous owner of the offending four-wheeler, was also absolved from the liability as he had already sold it off.
Claimants Rashi Gupta (37) and her mother-in-law Sudha Gupta (62) told the tribunal that while they were travelling on their two-wheeler on January 21, 2010, in Vashi area, a car being driven negligently in a rash manner hit them, injuring them grievously. The duo stated that they incurred over Rs 10 lakh for their treatment.
Judge Vadane observed that the first owner of the vehicle Dhawani S Gadha had sold his car to Shyamlal Adnanani, the present owner, in 2007, and hence, was not liable to pay the compensation. Gadha had appeared before the judge. Respondent Adnanani did not appear before the tribunal and hence, the case was declared ex-parte against him.
Counsel for the insurance firm A K Tiwari, told the tribunal that the policy was taken for the said car on the date of the accident but there was a difference in time of the mishap and policy purchased.
It pointed out that the accident took place at 12.20 PM, while the policy was issued at 4.23 PM on the date of the accident. Hence at the time of the accident, the policy was not valid and that it cannot entertain the claim.
The counsel also cited a Supreme Court judgement in a case - National Insurance Company Ltd V/s Sobina Iakai and others reported in (2007).
The judge observed that in view of observation made by the apex court, the policy becomes operative since the time of commencement mentioned in the policy.
"In this case, the policy shows that it commenced from 16.23 hrs of January 21, 2010. Thus, at about 12.20 hrs of the same day the policy was not in existence. Therefore, offending vehicle was not insured with opponent insurance company at the time of the accident. Thus, it is not responsible to pay the compensation," the judge said.
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
