Rs 92 lakh payout for kin of Thane IT engineer killed in mishap

THANE: In one of the biggest payouts, the Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has awarded Rs 92 lakh to the family of an IT engineer who was killed in a freak mishap in 2007. Thane additional sessions judge Mridula V K Bhatia ordered Tribhuvan Vishwakarma, owner of a moped, and the United India Insurance Co Ltd to jointly make the payment to the five claimants—the IT engineer’s widow, his aged parents and two children—with an interest at 9% a year from the date of the filing of the claim.
Advocate P M Tillu, appearing for the claimants, told the tribunal that Gopal Mohta (32), a resident of Vedant Complex at Vartak Nagar, was employed with TCS as assistant consultant since August 1997, and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs 1.07 lakh. On March 31, 2007, at 10am, Mohta was returning home on his scooter home, when Vishwakarma, who was speeding on his moped, collided with the scooter. Mohta was admitted to hospital, where he died after four days. As the family spent Rs 4 lakh on his treatment, they sought a claim of Rs 2 crore and said the moped driver was solely responsible for the accident. But Vishwakarma told the tribunal that his vehicle was insured and hence, the insurance firm was liable to pay the compensation. He argued that Mohta died due to his own negligence, hence the application was not maintainable.
Advocate A K Tiwari, appearing for insurance firm, submitted that the employment of the deceased was not permanent; it was contractual in nature. Tiwari added that the police had not intimated the court about the mishap, and hence there was a dispute and the insurers do not agree with the occurrence of the accident involving the vehicle. He argued that according to the police papers relied by the applicant, it’s clear that Mohta was negligent to the extent of 90% and the moped driver was only 10%. Tiwari claimed that Mohta was obese, unable to ride a two-wheeler safely and did not have a proper driving licence, and hence was negligent and caused the accident.
But the judge pointed out, “Considering the various breaches by the accused driver under section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as also his admissions about his rash and negligent driving coupled with the deposition of the eyewitnesses, I hold that the deceased was at best negligent to the extent of 25%, while the accused driver was 75% negligent.”
“It can be seen that the deceased is a BE in computer science from VJTI, a reputed institute...and as his Form 16 and salary certificate and the employment with TCS is proved, merely because the appointment letter is not produced has no bearing on his income/future prospects,” the judge added.