2022 BMW accident: MACT awards Rs 28 L compensation to victim kin

“Petitioner has been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver/respondent no.1 on the date and time of accident,” the MACT order said.

The tribunal, therefore, awarded a total compensation of Rs 28.77 lakh to the petitioners, who were represented by advocate Sumit Chaudhary, after considering the age of the victim, his salary and the future prospects.

“This Tribunal needs to ascertain the age of deceased/victim, the appropriate multiplier, income of the deceased at the time of incident, the number of dependents, whether deceased was married or unmarried, whether deceased was having permanent employment or private job etc. to workout just compensation in this case,” the order said.

The tribunal awarded the compensation to the victim’s mother, wife, two sons and a daughter.

The MACT directed the owner and the driver to make the payment along with an annual interest of 7.5 per cent observing the liability to compensate the claimants fell upon both of them “jointly and severally” as the vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident.

Background

On July 10, 2022 victim Ranjan Kumar was found injured on the footpath of the Main Road, Lala Lajpat Rai Marg in the national capital. He was rushed to AIIMS but declared dead on arrival.

The police’s investigation revealed that one Shubham Jain was at the wheel and was driving in “a rash and negligent manner”. The accident was captured in a CCTV installed at the scene.

The owner informed the MACT that the car’s insurance could not be renewed due to persistent mechanical issues.

The car was taken to a repair workshop where Jain was working. It was alleged that he ignored the directions to not to use the vehicle and without consent, permission or knowledge of the owner of the car, drove the vehicle outside the workshop and caused the accident.

The MACT observed that the driver did not deny the occurrence of the accident or involvement of the offending vehicle by filing any reply.

It also rejected the defence of the car owner that the offending vehicle was being driven without his knowledge, consent or permission and as a result he could not be held liable to pay compensation.

“With no written declaration to show that respondent 1 (driver) or any manager or employee of Jain Auto parts repair company was informed by respondent 2 (owner) about the expiry of insurance policy, respondent 2 cannot be exonerated of his liability to compensate the petitioners,” the tribunal held.