NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has awarded over Rs five lakh as compensation to a man whose right hand was crushed after it came under the rear wheel of a bus in an accident five years ago. Justice J R Midha enhanced the compensation from Rs 2.43 to Rs 5.76 lakh considering the medical reports which suggested that the self-employed victim had suffered 50% disability.
The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal after assesing the claim had awarded Rs 2.43 lakh to Tahir, who was earlier doing screen printing job, to compensate for loss of income. The High Court allowed Tahir’s appeal for enhancement of compensation after taking into account medical certificates which claimed that he suffered permanent disability rendering him unemployed. HC in its order, also directed that the amount be deposited in a bank as fixed deposit.

Not too many people are aware of some of the processes and procedures dealing with applying for compensation under the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, so here are some sites that provide more information on this area:

What is Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (link to article):

Who can report to MACT in case of accident ?
Victim himself or through Advocate,in the case of personal injury. Through advocate in case of minor applicant below the age of 18 years. Legal heirs themselves or through advocate in the case of death.The owner of the vehicle in the case of property damage.

Some queries related to the MACT (link to article, including the documents to be submitted):

Q. I had lodged a case for insurance on account of motor accident, which took place. The Tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 20000/- only. Whether Tribunal is right in saying so and what is my remedy against said order?
A. If there is no evidence on the record to show that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 20,000/-, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The liability of an Insurance company, unless there is a prohibition to same in a contract or otherwise, is unlimited You can challenge the said order before the High Court in appeal.

More details on applying to MACT (link to article):

Chapter 10 with Sections 140 to 144 provides for interim compensation on ‘No Fault’ Basis. According to this provision Rs. 50,000/- is to be given to the kith and kin of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- to the grievously injured victim. The compensation under Section 140 is made payable if prima facie evidence of following is available;
(1) Accident by the offending vehicle;
(2) Offending vehicle being insured;
(3) Death or grievous injuries have been caused.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an order of the national consumer commission awarding Rs 38.04 lakh compensation to the mother of a seven-year-old girl who died after she was sucked into an escalator at Delhi’s international airport in December 1999. The order marked a stinging rebuke to the Airports Authority of India which, despite strong evidence pointing to its callousness in not maintaining the escalator, had sought to dispute the compensation granted to Geeta Jethani.
While awarding the compensation, the commission had criticized the cussed attitude of AAI in questioning the compensation for a death which clearly resulted from its apathy, saying the case pointed to the extent “we have developed the tendency to deny the obvious, in litigation”. “Except admitting the trapping of a young child in the escalator, the AAI has tried to dispute its liability and deficiency in service. We do not know when we will change our jurisprudence which encourages such attitude of denials and protracts litigation and increases burden on adjudicating forums/courts,” Justice M B Shah, chairman of the commission, had said in his verdict.

The whole incident was extremely shocking when it happened. From my memory, investigation seemed to show that the escalator was not being maintained properly, and in addition, there was no immediate button to stop the escalator. It seems a default now that every escalator has a Red stop button that will immediately stop the escalator, but such was not the case at that point of time. It was only after that incident was there increased focus on making sure that the escalator can stop in an emergency.
The other major problem that becomes evident from this case is that nature of Government enterprises. There is an incredible amount of lethargy, work-saving, and passing the buck that happens. This very rarely gets pointed out since these are after all Government enterprises, but one hopes that more judgments like these will ensure that even Government run enterprises are responsible for ensuring safety at their premises and for ensuring that customer service is their motto. This is hopeful thinking, but one rarely knows whether such an attitude change could happen.

Insurance companies cannot be compelled to pay compensation to all passengers in road accidents involving overloaded vehicles of public transport as the liability is restricted only to authorised number of passengers, the Supreme Court has ruled. In other words, if a 42-seater bus overloaded with 90 passengers meets with an accident, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation only to the extent of the authorised 42 passengers.
The apex court passed the ruling while setting aside the orders passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court and the Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal which had directed the National Insurance Company to compensate all the 90 passengers of a 42-seater bus involved in an accident.

This is an interesting judgment, and could affect people who get impacted by accidents. Typically, in most urban and rural areas, public transport is over-loaded. In the case of accidents, people would no longer have the safety of at least having insurance. However, this is correct from the perspective of an insurance company since the insurance on the vehicle and costing is as per the carrying capacity of the vehicle.

They were there for sheer fun, but a ride on the Ferris wheel turned out to be a traumatic experience for about 12 children and at least three adults, who suffered minor injuries when most of the wheel simply collapsed while in motion.
Although the organisers had the requisite permission to conduct the fair, they had not taken adequate precautions which led to the accident. Sources said the arms of the wheel came loose while in motion. “This could have happened as the nuts keeping the arms attached to the main body came loose,” an eye-witness remarked.

In can be argued that this was simply an accident, but that is not a correct argument. It is only when we are in a relaxed environment, unworried about things such as inspections of facilities, that people can take short-cuts, and either get shoddy maintenance done or no maintenance at all. There is no worry that they can be fined or otherwise held responsible for their doings. Another example is when you go to a ill-maintained building, then there is a fear that lifts in the building have not had proper maintenance, and we have all learned to live with such fears rather than trying to do something about it.