New Delhi, May 5: Delhi's Rohini Court awarded a compensation of Rs 44 lakh to a housemaid who met with a motor-vehicular accident in 2018 and left with 82 per cent permanent disability. The victim, identified as Sangeeta, sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of a car in the Mahendru Enclave area in 2018.

Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT) Presiding officer Ekta Gauba Mann awarded a compensation of Rs 44,68,000 to the victim. The court said that the petitioner suffered injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent driver and it is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent's insurance company on the date of the accident. Humanity Shamed! Accident Victim Dies on Road As Onlookers Watch but Do Not Come Forward To Help, Disturbing Video Goes Viral.

Thus, the court rejected the submissions of the insurance company. The court in its judgement observed that "Further, the allegations levelled in the written statement howsoever strong that may be, cannot take place of proof, particularly when the insurance company despite having raised the issue has not led any positive evidence on this aspect." Kerala High Court Orders KSRTC To Pay Adequate Compensation to Accident Victim Woman, Says ‘Housewife a Nation Builder’.

"In view of the above and since the respondent's insurance company has failed to establish any statutory defence, it is liable to indemnify the owner or insured and to pay compensation to the petitioner", the court added.

The court on May 4, further ordered that the petition is allowed and an award of Rs 44,68,000 which includes 15 months and 20 days interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of award is passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent insurance company (United India Insurance).

The court directed that the insurance company is directed to pay Rs. 44,68,000 to the petitioner within 30 days from today failing which, it would be liable to pay further interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the amount of Rs 39,97,354.44 from the date of award till its realization.

"Considering stances of the petitioner and after consulting counsel for petitioners, out of the awarded amount, 10 per cent amount plus the amount awarded under the head of 'medical expenses would be released to her through MACT saving bank account and 90 per cent remaining amount would be kept in Motor Accident Claims Annuity (Term) Deposit (MACAD), which would be released as an annuity to her in a phased manner i.e. Rs. 15,000", said the court.

In the petition, it was alleged that on 05.08.2018, the petitioner was sitting on the footpath in Mahindru Enclave, Delhi and waiting for her friend and at about 10 AM, suddenly a car driven by its driver Chandan Kumar Yadav came in a very high speed, rashly, negligently and without blowing any horn, it took a sharp turn hitting the petitioner.

As a result of this, the petitioner fell down on the road and was crushed under the wheels of the offending vehicle sustaining grievous injuries all over her body.

The driver of the offending vehicle fled away from the spot and the petitioner was taken to Pentamed Hospital, Gujranwala Town, Delhi for treatment. Car driver and owner Dharam Pal Rustagi filed their separate written statement taking a similar plea that the accident has not been caused due to the negligence of the driver but rather the accident was caused due to negligence on the part of the petitioner herself.

The insurance company had also filed its reply and it has not disputed the fact that the offending vehicle was insured with it on the date of the accident.

However, it disputed the identity of the driver claiming that the accident has been caused by the son of the owner and denied its liability on certain other technical grounds as well.

The court also considered the statement of Dr Ashutosh Gupta who deposed before the court that the petitioner suffered permanent disability to 82 per cent in relation to her right upper limb and right lower limb. He in reply to the court question has clarified that the petitioner could never normally discharge her duty due to the said permanent disability.

He further voluntarily stated that the major disability of the petitioner is 81 per cent in the rightupper limb and 5 per cent in the right lower limb which means she has 82 per cent permanent disability in relation to both and she would not be able to discharge her duty due to major permanent disability on her right upper limb.

(This is an unedited and auto-generated story from Syndicated News feed, LatestLY Staff may not have modified or edited the content body)