Family of a vegetable vendor, who died after being run over by a dumper in 2007, has finally got the compensation it had sought.
Family of a vegetable vendor, who died after being run over by a dumper in 2007, has finally got the compensation it had sought.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recently directed the dumper driver and the company with which the vehicle was insured to jointly pay the family of the deceased a compensation of Rs5,46,400 along with 7.5% interest per annum since the time of accident. The tribunal has instructed that the total amount be broken into four parts — Rs3,36,400 be given to the widow and the rest be divided equally among his three children.
The case dates back to February 22, 2007, when Mosim Abbas Sayed was selling vegetables on Ghatkoper Station Road. A speeding dumper rammed into five vendors, one of them being Sayed, who, along with another, died due to serious injuries. The police had registered an FIR against the dumper driver Ramswamy Devendra for rash and negligent driving.
After Sayed's wife approached the tribunal, seeking compensation, Devendra claimed he was not at fault as he was trying to avoid dashing into a vehicle coming from the opposite side. He also claimed that the deceased was selling vegetables in a narrow lane without bothering for vehicular traffic.
Sayed's family members had also sought compensation from New India Assurance Company, with which the dumper was insured. The firm, however, claimed that the FIR does not mention the name of the deceased, just a passing reference of the death of a 45-year-old, and hence, it was not liable to pay for the loss.
The tribunal, after going through the evidence, ruled that it is clear the width of the road was 35 feet, and, hence, the driver could have avoided the mishap, but it was a sheer negligence on his part as he was speeding. Also, it added, the driver's claim that he had tried to avoid an accident with an oncoming vehicle was not proved at any stage.
While turning down the insurance firm's claims, the tribunal said the company's contention that the FIR doesn't name the deceased doesn't hold because the post-mortem report clearly mentions him and the cause of death.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}