In a significant ruling, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Maharashtra’s Thane district has directed a compensation of over ₹1.2 crore to the bereaved family of a businessman who tragically lost his life in an SUV accident on the Mumbai-Pune Expressway three years ago.
The tribunal’s member, R V Mohite, on Thursday, October 10, ordered the owner of the tempo involved in the collision, along with its insurer, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., to jointly and severally disburse the sum of ₹1,20,25,733. This amount is to be paid with an annual interest rate of 9% from the date the petition was filed until the full realization of the payment.
The unfortunate incident occurred on the afternoon of August 5, 2020. The victim, 40-year-old Sachin Kanifnath Changulpai, a businessman, was operating his SUV on the busy expressway when a tempo, allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner, abruptly switched lanes. This sudden manoeuvre led to a severe collision with Changulpai’s vehicle. The impact propelled the SUV into the road divider, resulting in the businessman’s instant death at the scene.
Initially, the family’s petition sought a compensation of ₹5 crore, which was subsequently restricted to ₹1 lakh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act during the initial stages. However, after a thorough review of evidence and established legal precedents, the tribunal ultimately awarded the larger sum of more than ₹1.2 crore.
The presiding judge unequivocally determined that the accident was solely attributable to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tempo. The court found no evidence suggesting any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. Furthermore, the tribunal highlighted that neither the tempo owner nor its driver appeared in the witness box to refute these claims or to argue for contributory negligence.
The tribunal also confirmed that the tempo driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, and there was no breach of the terms and conditions stipulated in the insurance policy. “The petition is partly allowed with proportionate costs,” the order stated, emphasizing the joint and several liability of the opponents to pay the specified amount with the mandated interest.
