Live
- Harish Rao Criticizes Opposition, Vows to Fight for the Poor in Musi River Cleanup
- All Set for Telangana Group-1 Mains Exams; Over 31,000 Candidates to Appear
- Technical Glitch Grounds Indigo Flight at Shamshabad Airport; Passengers Stranded for 5 Hours
- Kishan Reddy Criticizes CM Over Silence on Muthyalamma Temple Attack
- Women’s T20 WC final: Late onslaught by Halliday, Kerr propels NZ to 158/5 against South Africa
- RG Kar protest: Junior doctors to meet CM Mamata on Monday but without withdrawing hunger strike
- Young India Gurukul School Construction to Finish by Next Academic Year - MP Dr. Mallu Ravi
- Awareness Seminar on Self-Employment Opportunities on 22nd of this Month Must Be a Success – MP Mallu Ravi
- Service Mindset is Essential for Everyone - MLC Kuchukulla Damodar Reddy
- Arjun Kadhe/Rithvik Bollipalli win maiden ATP Tour title at Almaty Open
Tata AIG told to pay 14.72 lakh compensation to kin of mishap victim
The family members of a 45-year-old man, who died after being hit by a car, have been awarded a compensation of over Rs 14 lakh by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here.
New Delhi (PTI): The family members of a 45-year-old man, who died after being hit by a car, have been awarded a compensation of over Rs 14 lakh by a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here.
MACT Presiding Officer Amit Bansal directed Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd, insurer of the offending car that hit the motorcycle of the victim, killing him on the spot in 2014, to pay Rs 14.72 lakh to his mother and three children.
The tribunal decided the petition in favour of the victim's family after relying on the testimony of an eyewitness and documents produced on record, including a copy of the FIR, post mortem report and mechanical inspection report of the vehicle.
According to the petition, which claimed Rs 50 lakh for the death of victim Mahaveer, who was a driver by profession, the victim was on a bike with another man when he was hit by a car near Farruk Nagar in north-west Delhi.
During the proceedings, the insurance company had contended that it was not liable to pay the amount as the driver did not have a valid driving licence and the owner's policy was not active. The contentions of the firm were rejected by the tribunal. The driver and the owner of the vehicle did not lead any evidence in their support.
