E-Paper
Tribunal rejects ₹ 50 lakh claim over minor’s death in motor accident
The petition was filed by Sector 25 residents, Nankai and Ananat Ram, over the death of their son Mukesh, a class 8 student; the tribunal cited lack of proof and contradictory claims
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) on March 20, dismissed a compensation claim of ₹ 50 lakh filed by the parents of a 13-year-old boy who died in a road accident in August 2024, citing lack of proof and contradictory claims.
The petition was filed by Sector 25 residents, Nankai and Ananat Ram, originally from Gonda district of Uttar Pradesh, over the death of their son Mukesh, a class 8 student. The claim was filed against motorcycle rider Putti Lal, vehicle owner Babu Lal, and the insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company. As per the driver, Mukesh was also related to Babu Lal.
According to the claim, on August 12, 2024, at around 11:35 pm, Mukesh was travelling as a pillion rider with Putti Lal to a market in Sector 25 to purchase milk. A stray cow allegedly came in front of the motorcycle near a private hospital in Sector 26,. The rider lost control and both fell on the road, causing serious injuries to Mukesh. He was first taken to Civil Hospital, Sector 6, and later referred to GMCH-32, Chandigarh, where he succumbed on August 16.
A Daily Diary Report (DDR) was lodged at the Chandimandir police station on Putti Lal’s statement. However, no FIR was registered in the case.
The claimants alleged that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by Putti Lal. They also stated that an earlier claim petition filed in 2024 was withdrawn due to technical reasons.
The tribunal observed that the burden was on the claimants to prove the allegations. It noted that in the earlier claim petition, there was no such allegation, whereas the present petition introduced these claims, making it an “improved version.”
Further, the tribunal highlighted that the DDR stated that no one was at fault and no legal action was sought. It held that if negligence had occurred, the claimants should have pursued FIR registration and police investigation. Considering these contradictions and lack of evidence, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
The respondents, including the driver, owner, and insurance company, challenged the maintainability of the petition, denying negligence and attributing the accident to the sudden appearance of stray cattle. The insurer also pointed out a delay of five days in lodging the DDR.
