The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has directed a truck driver and owner of the vehicle to jointly pay rs 19.9 lakh and Rs 3.77 lakh to two persons who were hit by the rashly-driven truck near Industrial Area, Phase 1, in 2014.
The victims, Sumit, 18, and Surinder Kumar, 27, of Hallomajra, Chandigarh, were hit by Satnam Singh, the truck driver.
The victims, however, had sought Rs 30 lakh compensation on account of multiple grievous injuries sustained by them.
On March 31, 2014, both of them were going from Sector 20 to their house on a bicycle. When they reached at Poultry Farm Chowk, Chandigarh, and were about to cross it, a rashly-driven truck (PB-11-BF-6578) hit the bicycle and both of them fell on the road and were dragged to a few metres. The impact was so high that both of them received serious injuries, and were later rushed to Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32; Sumit was later referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research.
A case under sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Satnam Singh at the Industrial Area police station on April 01, 2014.
{{/usCountry}}A case under sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Satnam Singh at the Industrial Area police station on April 01, 2014.
{{/usCountry}}In its order, the tribunal observed that since Sumit was found permanent physically challenged to the extent of 30% in respect of right lower limb - due to this disability - he will have difficulty in walking, running, sitting cross legged, squatting and stair climbing. The petitioner-injured, being a male member, has to earn to support his family and the disability will certainly create problems.”
Awarding rs 3.77 lakh compensation to Surinder, the tribunal stated that he was found permanent physically challenged to the extent of 8% in respect of his left lower limb. “It is apparent from his medical record that the petitioner had remained under treatment for around six months during which he must have suffered a lot of pain, and been deprived of amenities of life. Due to the injuries, he will also go through same ordeal in future as well.”