A 30-year-old man, who had received serious injuries in a road accident involving a rashly driven truck, has been awarded nearly Rs 21 lakh compensation by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here.
The tribunal directed Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, with which the offending truck was insured, to pay Rs 20,87,925 to the victim Imran Khan, a resident of North West Delhi.
It said the truck driver and owner could not prove that the accident took place to due rash and negligent driving of Imran, who was riding a two-wheeler, and held that driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in his driving.
“Respondent no. 1 and 2 (truck driver and owner) have failed to prove that accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of petitioner (victim) himself.
“On the other hand, from the deposition of petitioner, it is clear that offending truck hit motorcycle being driven by the petitioner from back side. Hitting a vehicle from back side, shows in itself that driver of that vehicle was rash or at least negligent in his driving,” MACT Presiding Officer Rajender Kumar Shastri said.
Imran had said in his petition that the accident took place on April 9, 2010 when he, along with a friend, was returning home in Delhi from Ballabhgarh.
He was riding his motorcycle at a normal speed and when they reached at Kundli in Sonepat, a truck being driven by Mohd Iqbal Khan at a high speed, rashly and negligently came from behind and hit his bike with a great force.
Due to the impact, he fell down and suffered grievous injuries on his left hand and other body parts. He was taken to hospital by the police.
The victim said he remained admitted in the hospital for few days and his left arm was amputated.
He said he was working as a machine operator with a firm in Nangloi here and was getting salary of Rs 6,700 per month.
The truck driver and owner claimed before the tribunal that the accident took place due to the negligence of Imran as he could not control his motorcycle as he had tied another motorcycle behind it.
The tribunal, however, rejected their contention, saying they failed to prove it.
“Petitioner being injured is a natural eye witness of accident. No contradiction appeared in his statement… Apart from deposition of petitioner, police also indicted truck driver for rash and negligent driving,” it said.