4 years after man’s hit-and-run death, tribunal lets mother’s claim proceed

The motor accident claims tribunal said the claim could not be viewed separately from the “exceptional history” of the police investigation, which the Bombay High Court had earlier found to be “grossly callous”

Mumbai: A motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) on Tuesday allowed a compensation claim filed by the mother of a man crushed to death by a truck in Malad in 2022 to proceed, despite the insurer arguing that it was filed too late.

The motor accident claims tribunal said the claim could not be viewed separately from the “exceptional history” of the police investigation, which the Bombay High Court had earlier found to be “grossly callous”. (Shutterstock)

The tribunal said the claim could not be viewed separately from the “exceptional history” of the police investigation, which the Bombay High Court had earlier found to be “grossly callous”.

Aman Pawan Jha, 29, was riding a scooter on New Link Road in Malad on August 17, 2022, when he was struck from behind by a speeding truck and run over. His mother, Babita Jha, who was riding a separate two-wheeler alongside him, said she was in “a state of shock and horror” after the accident and could not note down the truck’s registration number.

The Bangur Nagar police registered a case the same day but made little headway. Fourteen months later, in October 2023, the police filed a closure report before a magistrate, having failed to identify the truck, its owner, and the driver.

Days later, the police told the court that they had finally identified the truck, its owner and the driver. They said they had done so by comparing e-challans issued on the day of the accident and tracking the vehicle’s entry into Mumbai. The court questioned why this method had not been used earlier, saying it had been available “from the outset” and that there was “no explanation” for the three-year delay.

In its judgment on September 3, 2025, the high court held that the delay in the investigation had “caused immense prejudice” to Jha. It ordered the director general of police to hold a departmental inquiry against sub-inspector Dnyadev Pawar, who had handled the investigation for two years without even seizing the victim’s scooter, a step the court called basic in such cases.

The court also directed that the criminal trial be completed within a year and, crucially for the case now before the tribunal, ruled that time spent in the high court and trial court be excluded when calculating the limitation for any compensation claim.

That direction proved decisive on Tuesday, when the MACT said that forcing the Jha family to withdraw the compensation claim, wait out the criminal trial and then file a fresh claim would cause “unnecessary multiplicity” of proceedings and complicate the very limitation issue the high court had sought to protect.

The insurer, Royal Sundaram General Insurance, had argued that Jha’s claim was barred under section 166(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which requires such claims to be filed within six months of an accident.

However, tribunal member Shashikant Bangar rejected the argument. He held that the high court’s order excluding the time spent in the trial court and high court proceedings had to be given full effect. He also noted that a pending Supreme Court challenge to the six-month limit separately bars tribunals from rejecting claims on that ground for now.

“The passage of time cannot be examined in isolation from the exceptional history of the investigation and the proceedings before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court,” he said.

The tribunal therefore allowed the compensation claim to proceed, while leaving the larger legal question open. It also directed that no adjournments be granted except for compelling reasons recorded in writing.

The one-year period within which the high court had wanted the criminal trial concluded ended on September 3 this year. The trial remains ongoing.