Twitter
Advertisement

Infrastructure firm fined for employee's death

The case dates back to May 6, 2008, when the complainant's wife was on duty. A roadroller owned by the firm, while reversing, ran over her, killing her on the spot. Malya further claimed that the roller had failed to give any warning or horn while reversing.

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal recently penalised a Chembur-based infrastructure firm after it was proved that a roller owned by the firm was responsible for the death of the complainant's wife in 2008. The tribunal thus asked the firm to pay a compensation of Rs3.86 lakh at an interest of 7.5%.

According to the complainant and Navi Mumbai resident Ashaappa Malya (37), his wife used to work as a labourer with Ajwani Infrastructures.

The case dates back to May 6, 2008, when the complainant's wife was on duty. A roadroller owned by the firm, while reversing, ran over her, killing her on the spot. Malya further claimed that the roller had failed to give any warning or horn while reversing.

Hence, the complainant approached the tribunal and filed a case, seeking compensation from the firm. According to the order copy, the complainant claimed that due to the death of his wife, he had suffered mental agony and had been deprived of her love and affection.

The tribunal had asked the firm to file its reply but after it failed to, a judgment was passed in favour of the complainant in 2012.

However, the firm had approached the Bombay high court, filing an appeal against the tribunal's order. The HC, in its order, had asked the firm to go back to the tribunal and fight the case on legal grounds.

The case was again initiated before the tribunal, when the firm held that the roadroller driver had a valid driver's licence and hence there was no breach of terms and conditions of policy. However, the insurance firm Iffco Tokio, which had provided cover to the roller, claimed that there was breach of the insurance policy because driver Bhivaji Suryavanshi did not have a valid driver's licence. The insurance company also contended that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased.

The tribunal, after going through the evidence, held, "After the amendment of 1994 in section 10, even a roadroller, considered a heavy vehicle, can't be driven without obtaining a valid licence under the Motor Vehicle Act. In this case, the driver didn't have a valid licence. Therefore, it is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy."

The tribunal held that the insurance company has established its defence on record, holding the firm responsible for the death.

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement