Family of accident victim to get Rs 32-lakh compensation

  • Nikhil Sharma, Hindustan Times
  • Updated: Jan 19, 2016 11:35 IST

Providing relief to the kin of a 56-year-old accident victim, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, has directed the owner, driver and insurer of the car to pay a compensation of Rs 32 lakh.

Dalip Kumar Maggo, who was working in the office of the directorate of census operations, Haryana, at Sector 19A, was killed after a rashly driven Tata Indica Vista car (CH-04-K-1697) hit his scooter (CH-03-F-9342) from the rear near the Sector 44-45 light point on February 4 last year.

Maggo was rushed to Government Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Sector 32, where doctors declared him brought dead. A first information report (FIR) was registered by Maggo’s son-in-law Aseem Bansal, a witness in the case.

The tribunal pronounced the order following a complaint by the victim’s wife, Neelam Maggo, a resident of Sector 49A, and his daughters Smriti and Preeti who had sought Rs 50 lakh compensation from the car driver, Jagdeep Singh, a resident of Palsora, general manager of Allahabad Bank, Sector 17 (owner of the car), and Sector 5-based Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Limited.

Bansal had claimed that after the accident, he arranged a vehicle to rush his father-in-law to the hospital and he chased the vehicle involved in the accident.

Supporting the contention of the eyewitness, the tribunal granted the relief of Rs 32.38 lakh to the claimants.

The car driver, however, said he was falsely implicated in the case. He said charges of rash and negligent driving were not proved from the statement of the witness. Refuting Bansal’s claims, bank officials said it could not be expected as being a relative of the deceased, he was required to take Maggo to the hospital, but he followed the vehicle.

However, the tribunal observed that Bansal had given a natural version and his confidence could not be shaken during his crossexamination.

“If the statement of the witness is found trustworthy, then it can be relied upon and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he was an interested witness. It’s the joint liability of the respondents, including the insurance company, to make the payment,” reads the tribunal order.

also read

Councillor’s report card: Made little change on the ground
Show comments