New Delhi, March 17 A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) here has awarded over Rs 4.59 crore 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 was not only 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. It noted that such an argument was never raised during final arguments or in the written submissions filed at the final stage.
"It seems this defence has been irresponsibly taken only in the written statement/reply in a casual manner," said the court dismissing the statutory defence.
The tribunal awarded Rs 4.59 crore to Cristina Severi's parents after calculating the loss of dependency based on her annual income and prospects, while Rs 1.82 crore was granted to Maria Claudia for the injuries she suffered in the accident.
In Cristina's case, the court only considered her parents to be dependents and denied compensation to her three siblings as no proof could be furnished that Cristina contributed finances towards them.
While Cristina's father was receiving a pension at the time of her death, which should ordinarily raise doubts on his claim of dependency, the court took note of his elderly age as he was 60 years old at the time of the accident.
"The principle concerning dependency of elderly parents on their children cannot be applied differently merely because they are foreign nationals deriving pension," the court said.
In Maria's case, she underwent surgical treatments for grievous injuries to her legs, eyes and skull. The court noted that the nature of her injuries would leave her incapable of performing daily pursuits and working for six months, making her entitled to the loss of her income as a mergers and acquisitions finance manager for that period.
She was also assessed to be 12 per cent functionally disabled due to the accident, leading to her being compensated Rs 1.22 crore solely for the loss of future income.
The tribunal further directed the insurers of the two offending vehicles to deposit the compensation amounts directly in the bank accounts of the claimants in Italy, noting that requiring them to travel to India to receive the amount would cause undue hardship.