E-Paper
Chandigarh MACT awards ₹1-crore to accident victim
The award, passed by MACT presiding officer Harinder Sidhu on July 4, directed the insurer of the offending truck to deposit ₹1.3 crore along with 7.5% annual interest from the date of filing the claim petition within two months of receiving a copy of the order
A Chandigarh Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹1.3 crore compensation to a 35- year-old marketing professional who suffered injuries, including amputation of a leg, after being hit by a truck near Majri Chowk Bridge in Panchkula in 2020.
The award, passed by MACT presiding officer Harinder Sidhu on July 4, directed the insurer of the offending truck to deposit ₹1.3 crore along with 7.5% annual interest from the date of filing the claim petition within two months of receiving a copy of the order.
The claimant, Amit Kumar Pandey, had sought ₹1.1 crore in compensation from the truck driver Mohammad Kabir, owner Cargo Carriers India and National Insurance Company.
According to the claim petition, on November 6, 2020, Pandey had gone to Majri Chowk Bridge in his Wagon R car after his friend Rahul Nirwani’s Fortuner SUV developed a tyre puncture while the latter was returning home from Elante Mall. Pandey parked his car behind the Fortuner and the two were attempting to change the tyre when the truck, coming from the Zirakpur side, allegedly rammed into them.
The impact caused Pandey multiple grievous injuries, including fractures to his legs and arms. He was taken to Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula, where one of his legs had to be amputated. The tribunal noted that he suffered 80% permanent disability.
Pandey told the tribunal that before the accident he was working as a senior business chemical marketing specialist with Thermo Fisher Scientific India in a touring job. Evidence produced by his employer showed that following the amputation, he could no longer undertake the travel required for his earlier job and his prospects of promotion and incentives had been affected.
While assessing compensation, the tribunal held that the physical disability could not simply be mechanically equated with loss of earning capacity. However, considering the nature of Pandey’s job, his loss of mobility and the impact of the amputation on his career, it assessed his functional or economic disability at 80%.
The tribunal assessed his annual income at ₹5 lakh and added ₹2 lakh towards future prospects. Applying 80% disability and a multiplier of 16, it calculated ₹89.60 lakh towards loss of future earnings.
Besides this, the tribunal awarded ₹2.25 lakh towards unreimbursed medical expenses, ₹1.50 lakh towards pain and suffering, attendant charges, special diet and transportation, and ₹10,000 towards an artificial limb.
The respondents had disputed Pandey’s version of the accident and claimed that the accident had occurred between the Fortuner and the Wagon R. The insurer had also questioned the validity of the truck driver’s licence. The tribunal rejected these objections. It found that the driver’s licence was valid from June 27, 2014, until June 26, 2034, covering the date of the accident.
