Top
Millennium Post

Victim’s kin get Rs 21 lakh compensation

Victim’s kin get Rs 21 lakh compensation
X
The Tribunal directed the New India Assurance Company Ltd, with which the offending vehicle was insured, to pay Rs 21,51,460 to the husband and minor daughter of 21-year-old victim Mamta, who had died in the accident in 2011.

“...after considering all the documents filed by the petitioners as a whole it is clear that respondent No 1 (tempo driver) was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner,” MACT Presiding Officer Sanjeev Kumar Singh said.

Mamta’s husband and daughter had sought compensation of Rs 15 lakh for fatal injuries sustained by her in the accident.

They said in their petition that on the night of May 13, 2011, Mamta along with her husband and daughter was going to a hospital from their house in a rickshaw. When they reached near Paharganj Police Station, a speeding tempo hit the rickshaw with a great force.

As a result, they fell down and sustained grievous injuries. While victim’s husband and her daughter were taken to a children’s hospital, Mamta and the rickshaw puller were admitted to another hospital where she died the next morning during. The court noted that the woman’s husband testified that Mamta was a <g data-gr-id="42">housewife</g> but she was also working with a firm here and was getting a salary of Rs 8,000.

It, however, said no evidence in this regard has been filed on <g data-gr-id="35">record</g> and the deceased is considered as a housewife.

The court calculated the amount saying no qualification certificate has been filed and the minimum salary of <g data-gr-id="41">non</g>- matriculate, ie Rs 7,098 per month, was required to be taken for assessment of loss of gratuitous service rendered by the deceased to her family.

It said an addition of 25 per cent for the minimum wages was required as the victim was more than 20 years of age.

The court, while directing the insurance firm to pay the compensation amount, gave it liberty to recover the money from the tempo driver and owner holding that the driver was not having a 
valid and effective commercial vehicle licence on the date of accident. 

Next Story
Share it