Thane, July 2, 2026: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Thane, has dismissed a compensation claim filed by a Swiggy delivery executive who sought Rs 1 lakh under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained after the scooter he was riding skidded due to a punctured tyre.
Presiding Member R.V. Mohite held that although the claimant had suffered grievous injuries in the accident, he was not entitled to compensation from the insurer because he had stepped into the shoes of the vehicle owner, who happened to be his wife.
Claim Based On Accident
The claimant, Shekhar Bhima Sanap, had approached the tribunal seeking compensation after an accident that occurred on February 1, 2020, at around 2.30 am while he was returning home on a scooter.
According to the claim, the scooter’s wheel got punctured, causing the vehicle to skid. Sanap sustained serious injuries and was initially admitted to Balasaheb Thackeray Trauma Centre before being shifted to Bhabha Hospital. He later underwent further treatment at Rajawadi Hospital.
Sanap claimed that he had incurred medical expenses of around Rs 30,000 and had suffered permanent disability affecting his mobility. A doctor examined on his behalf assessed his permanent partial disability at 39 per cent and stated that another surgery costing approximately Rs 1 lakh would be required to remove the implants.
The tribunal, however, observed that the disability certificate was not issued by the treating doctor and there was no evidence to establish that the claimant’s earning capacity had reduced in proportion to the certified disability.
Insurer Not Liable
While deciding the maintainability of the petition, the tribunal held that the claim under Section 163-A was otherwise maintainable, as negligence is not required to be proved under the provision and the claimant’s annual income was below the statutory limit of Rs 40,000 applicable at the relevant time.
The insurance company had opposed the claim, contending that the scooter was owned by the claimant’s wife and that he was riding it at the time of the accident. Therefore, he had stepped into the shoes of the owner and could not be treated as a third party entitled to compensation under the insurance policy.
Also Watch:
The tribunal noted that the scooter was covered under a package policy issued by Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. However, it observed that such a policy indemnifies the owner against liability towards third parties and paid drivers. Since the claimant was neither a paid driver nor a third party, but was using the owner’s vehicle, he could not claim compensation under Section 163-A.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
