MACT orders Rs 5 lakh compensation to widow of farmer killed in mishap

Sakal Times
Thursday, 2 November 2017

Shinde’s wife Malati (60) and son Sujit (34) moved the MACT demanding compensation of Rs 25 lakh from tractor owner Anandrao Vitthal Ghumare and United India Insurance Company Limited, with whom the vehicle was insured, and driver Kantilal

Pune: The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT), Pune, has directed an insurance firm and tractor owner to pay Rs 5.95 lakh compensation to the wife of a 64-year-old man who was killed in a road accident, even though the accused driver was acquitted by a trial court.

The deceased, Kashinath Baburao Shinde, a resident of Pimple Saudagar, died in the accident on December 26, 2013 at about 1.15 pm when he was walking on Cottage Hospital Road in Karmala, Solapur district. The tractor was hauling two trailers. He sustained severe head injuries. A passer-by took him to a hospital where he was declared dead. The police registered an offence against tractor driver Kantilal Ghumare.

Shinde’s wife Malati (60) and son Sujit (34) moved the MACT demanding compensation of Rs 25 lakh from tractor owner Anandrao Vitthal Ghumare and United India Insurance Company Limited, with whom the vehicle was insured, and driver Kantilal.

According to the complainant, the deceased was getting a pension of Rs 17,500 per month and earned an agricultural income of Rs 12,000 to Rs 15,000 per month.

“The opposite parties claimed that the accident took place because the deceased suddenly came on the road and lost his balance. There was argument on behalf of the advocate of the tractor driver that the driver was acquitted by the concerned  court. But a copy of the judgment is not filed on record. However, the law on the point of negligence is settled. The tribunal has to decide the issue of negligence on the basis of evidence adduced before it. It is not bound by the judgment of any (trial) court,” states the judgement. The MACT ordered that the compensation amount be given to the deceased’s wife, who is a dependent, and not his son.

Related News