MACT court 4.59 cr awarded to parents of Italian woman engineer
A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here has awarded over Rs 4.59 crore as compensation to the parents of a 35-year-old Italian engineer who died in a road accident in Rajasthan in 2008 and Rs 1.82 crore to her sister, who sustained grievous injuries in the same incident.
Presiding Officer Charu Gupta held that the accident occurred due to the “composite negligence” of the drivers of both vehicles involved, including a tourist car and a truck. On August 10, 2008, Italian nationals Cristina Severi and her sister Maria Claudia Severi were travelling from Jodhpur to Jaipur when their car collided with a truck on NH-14 in Rajasthan's Pali district. Cristina succumbed to her injuries on the way to the hospital, while Maria Claudia sustained serious injuries and later underwent treatment at AK Hospital, Beawar, Rajasthan in India. She later continued the rest of the treatment in Italy. “This Tribunal is of the opinion that the petitioner has been able to prove on the scales of preponderance of probabilities that the accident in question took place due to composite negligence on the part of drivers of the offending vehicles,” said the court in its judgment dated February 28.
The insurer for the offending truck, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance, refuted its liability to compensate the petitioners on the ground that the driver of the truck committed a breach of the terms of policy by driving without a valid licence. They further argued that the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the tourist car carrying the Italian sisters.
The driver of the tourist car denied negligence, rashness or fault on their part as the offending truck was driving on the wrong side of the road and was approaching at a high speed from the opposite side. The insurer of the tourist car, United India General Insurance, argued along similar lines and said only the driver of the offending truck had been chargesheeted by the police, making them solely liable.
During her cross-examination, petitioner Maria said that the tourist car she was a passenger of not only was being driven at a high speed but also in a zig-zag manner, making it obvious to her to sense the carelessness of the driver. However, she stressed that the truck was equally liable as it came from the wrong side of the road. Neither of the drivers of the car and the truck stepped into the witness box to explain the circumstances under which the accidents occurred, causing the court to draw an adverse inference against them.
The court rejected the argument absolving the insurers of the truck of all liability on the basis of the driver not having a valid licence, as it noted no evidence to substantiate the claim had been placed on record. The insurance company has neither served a notice under the Civil Code of Procedure (CPC) for the production of the driver's licence nor has it examined any witness to prove the claim.
