Thane: The Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), in a recent judgment, directed New India Assurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle to jointly pay a compensation of Rs 58,26,086 to a 53-year-old Malad resident, who suffered 100% occupational disability as a result of a severe accident.
The tribunal, presided over by Member S.N. Shah, observed, “The petitioner, at the time of the accident, was serving as an accountant at M/s. Parth Gems, Mumbai. His left leg was amputated above the knee. Obviously, after this amputation, he cannot work as he was doing earlier. This type of disability cannot be reduced by the lapse of time. Hence, his permanent partial disability is considered as 80%. It is also necessary and relevant to consider here that the injury sustained by him is definitely hampering his occupation and major daily activities. Considering the nature of the proven injury and the condition of the petitioner, his occupational disability is considered as 100%.”
The petitioner, Arvind Parmar, filed the claim stating that on February 24, 2021, around 6 p.m., while returning home on his motorcycle, he was hit from behind by a luxury passenger bus on the South Lane of the Western Express Highway, Vile Parle. The bus, owned by a Rajasthan resident, Praveen Panmar, was allegedly speeding and being driven rashly and negligently.
The impact caused Parmar to fall, and the front wheel of the bus ran over his left leg. He was immediately rushed to Cooper Hospital and later shifted to Dr. Balabhai Nanavati Hospital, where he continues to undergo treatment.
While an FIR was registered against the driver and owner of the bus, the owner failed to submit a reply. The insurance company, however, argued that the petitioner was riding at high speed, in the middle of the road, and could have avoided the accident had he been more cautious. They claimed that 90% of the negligence lay with the petitioner, and only 10% with the bus driver.
According to their defence,“He could have easily seen the vehicle approaching from behind through the side mirror and moved to the left to allow it to pass, especially since he was familiar with the busy traffic conditions on that road.”
The tribunal rejected the insurer’s arguments and observed, “If the insurance company claims that the petitioner was not focused on road safety, then the same logic must apply to the bus driver, who could have also easily seen the Activa in front of him, given the elevated position of the driver’s seat. He should have maintained a safe distance.”
“It is unreasonable to assume that only the petitioner was aware of the heavy traffic on that road. All drivers, including the driver of the offending vehicle, are expected to know this. The duty to exercise caution lies more heavily on the bus driver, who was operating a passenger vehicle.”
Concluding its order, the tribunal stated, “From both oral and documentary evidence, the manner of the accident is clear. The dash was from behind. The driver of the offending vehicle did nothing to avoid the accident, despite having the opportunity.”
