Killed in mishap, CTU driver's kin to get Rs 70 lakh compensation
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has directed the owner and driver of a truck involved in a 2013 road mishap that killed the driver employed, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) to pay Rs 70.71 lakh as compensation with 7.5% interest to kin of the accident victim.chandigarh Updated: Feb 10, 2015 08:38 IST
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has directed the owner and driver of a truck involved in a 2013 road mishap that killed the driver employed, Chandigarh Transport Undertaking (CTU) to pay Rs 70.71 lakh as compensation with 7.5% interest to kin of the accident victim.
Holding the truck driver ----- Partap Singh hailing from Amritsar guilty of rash and negligent driving, the tribunal directed the driver as well as the owner of the truck Jagdeep Singh, a resident of SAS Nagar, and the truck's insurer HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited to jointly and severally pay the compensation the kin of the victim, Ashok Kumar (43).
The case was solved based on the statement of the eyewitness, who had been following the accident victim on a separate two-wheeler, coupled with the medical evidence. These pointed to the fact that truck driver was responsible for the accident and the death.
The compensation amount would be shared by the five surviving members of the deceased Ashok Kumar (43), including his aged parents.
On December 10, 2013, at about 4 pm, Ashok Kumar (43), with friend, Rajinder Singh, started on separate two-wheelers for the CTU workshop in Sector 25, Chandigarh.
When they reached the Attawa Chowk, a truck driven by Partap Singh, at fast speed and being driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of the deceased, dragging it several feet away.
The victim sustained serious injuries and was taken to PGIMER, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries sustained.
The driver of truck Partap Singh, hailing from Amritsar, and Jagdeep Singh, a resident of SAS Nagar, the owner of the truck, claimed false implication and claimed that no accident took place. He claimed the deceased was in fact driving rashly.
The truck's insurer, HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, pleaded that the offending vehicle was not insured with it, hence, it was not liable to indemnify the owner under any circumstances.
They said even, there was no valid and effective route permit of the truck in question, therefore, the vehicle was being plied in utter violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.