MACT Orders Rs 1.98 Crore Compensation for Family of Victim in Juvenile-Driven Car Accident

Keywords: MACT, Delhi, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, compensation, juvenile driver, culpable homicide, insurance, road safety, parental responsibility

In a significant ruling, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) in Delhi has directed HDFC Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. to pay over Rs 1.98 crore to the family of Sidharth Sharma, a 32-year-old man who died in 2016 after being hit by a speeding Mercedes driven by a juvenile.

Background of the Case

The accident occurred on April 4, 2016, in the Civil Lines area of Delhi. Sharma was crossing the road when the juvenile, accompanied by six friends, struck him with the car, propelling him approximately 20 feet into the air and causing fatal injuries. An FIR was registered at the Civil Lines police station following the incident.

Tribunal’s Observations

Presiding officer Pankaj Sharma, while hearing the compensation claim filed by Sidharth Sharma’s parents, noted that the juvenile was driving negligently at a very high speed. The tribunal highlighted that the police had invoked section 304 of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) based on CCTV footage showing the juvenile’s “dangerous driving”.

The tribunal castigated the juvenile’s father for his tacit consent in allowing his minor son to drive despite knowing his previous traffic violations. The tribunal emphasized the father’s responsibility, noting that he “wilfully cultivated illegal behaviour of his minor son” and failed to prevent him from driving.

Compensation Details

The MACT ordered the insurance company to pay Rs 1.21 crore as compensation to the victim’s family, along with Rs 77.61 lakh as interest, bringing the total amount to Rs 1,98,89,820. The tribunal dismissed a plea by the juvenile’s father seeking exoneration from liability and granted the insurance company recovery rights against the father.

The tribunal underscored that the accident was a direct result of the “negligence and rashness” of the juvenile driver, making the victim’s family entitled to compensation.

Conclusion

This ruling serves as a crucial reminder of the responsibilities of parents in preventing underage driving and the severe consequences of neglecting such duties. The decision also reinforces the legal principle that insurance companies can seek recovery from the liable parties in cases involving negligence and illegal activities.

For ongoing updates and detailed coverage of legal and governance issues, visit Kanishk Social Media. If you found this article informative, please share it with others interested in legal and road safety developments.