Thane, Dec 15: The Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has rejected a compensation claim of Rs 25 lakh filed by a Thane-based family over the tragic road accident of their son that occurred in 2004.
The tribunal dismissed the petition, citing a “stale claim” filed after an “enormous delay” of 12 years, and ultimately held that the vehicle on which the deceased was riding as a pillion was responsible for the accident.
Parents Filed Claim 12 Years After Accident
The petition seeking compensation was filed by Dashrath and Jijabai Shelar in 2016, following the death of their son, Ravindra Dashrath Shelar, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road accident on December 10, 2004, at Kalyan Phata, Thane.
Car Owner and Insurers Named as Respondents
The petitioners claimed that Mangaon businessman Dinesh Pardhi, the owner of the involved Qualis car, and the insurance firms New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., were responsible for the negligent driving that allegedly led to their son’s death.
Family Blamed Sudden Braking by Car
According to the petition, Ravindra was a pillion rider on a motorcycle. The family claimed that the Qualis car, which was allegedly moving at a very high speed, suddenly applied brakes, causing the motorcycle to crash into its rear bumper, leading to Ravindra’s fatal injuries. He died on December 17, 2004, while undergoing treatment at the Civil Hospital, Thane.
Respondents Blame Motorcycle Rider
The respondents, including Pardhi and the insurance companies, did not contest the occurrence of the accident or the death. However, they maintained that the accident was solely the fault of the motorcycle rider, who attempted to overtake the car.
They argued that when an auto-rickshaw appeared suddenly from the opposite direction, the motorcycle rider failed to control the vehicle, swerved left, and hit the car’s rear bumper.
Police Case Registered Against Bike Rider
The tribunal closely scrutinised the petitioners’ narrative and found it inconsistent with the official record. Crucially, it noted that the police had registered the crime not against the car driver, but against the motorcycle rider, Ranjit Manik Salunke, based on a report filed by the deceased, Ravindra, himself.
Safe Distance Not Maintained, Says MACT
The report indicated that the car driver was forced to apply brakes to avoid a collision with an auto-rickshaw that suddenly came in front of his vehicle, a necessary action that averted another accident.
The tribunal observed that if the petitioners claimed the car was speeding, the motorcycle following it must also have been moving at a high speed. The motorcycle rider was therefore obligated to maintain a safe distance to prevent a rear-end collision in any contingency.
Car Driver Not at Fault
“Blame cannot be given to the rider of the offending vehicle,” the order stated, concluding that the story projected by the petitioners regarding the car driver’s negligence was “not acceptable and cannot be relied upon”.
Delay Weakens Claim’s Credibility
The tribunal also gave significant weight to the 12-year delay in filing the claim. “While the law does not prescribe a strict period of limitation for MACT claims, the court deemed the claim, filed on December 2, 2016, to be a ‘stale claim’ not filed within a reasonable period.”
Also Watch:
Afterthought Following Legal Advice
The MACT inferred that the enormous delay suggested the family initially accepted that the accident was the fault of the motorcycle rider and pursued the claim years later as an “afterthought of legal advice”, an inference that further weakened the credibility of the claim.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
