SUNDAY, MAY 19, 2024
Team Herald
MARGAO: After a decade, justice was finally delivered to the family of a seafarer from Pulwado-Benaulim who lost his life in an accident in Tamil Nadu as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) directed the insurance company and the owner of a pickup to pay Rs 3.11 crore as compensation.
The accident occurred in August 2012 when Assis Bogdan Figueiredo, a seafarer and the breadwinner was driving with his family from Pulwado-Benaulim to the Vailankanni shrine in Tamil Nadu. Assis succumbed to his injuries while being shifted for medical treatment.
His wife Maria P A Fernandes e Figueiredo and their sons Alton and Alroy, who were the other car occupants, had filed for compensation under Section166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the owner and driver of the pickup and the insurance company.
Representing the family of the deceased, Adv Antonio Clovis da Costa pointed out that Assis was working on a ship till October 2010 and had taken leave for a year to attend to personal matters and business. Assis was supposed to get back on board the ship in January 2013.
In its order, the MACT stated that the claimants are entitled and that the owner of the pickup and the insurance company are jointly and severally held liable to pay an amount of Rs 3,11,89,886 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from July 1, 2016, the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment.
The accident took place at Musuvadi Cross, Sidhapur, on the Sagar Honavar highway when the pickup driven by 48-year-old Mohamad Aslam rammed into Assis’ car. The Figueiredo family sustained injuries in the accident.
The pickup owned by 54-year-old K M Anwar was driven on the wrong side of the road and in a rash and negligent manner.
In its written submission before MACT, the National Insurance Company Limited denied the case of the Figueiredo family, claiming that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving by the victim.
However, the MACT Presiding Officer Ishad Agha found that the accident was caused on account of the fault of the pickup driver and added that merely because the witnesses are not available, the benefit cannot be given to the owner and driver as this was not a criminal proceeding.
“The respondents have not taken any defence of contributory negligence. The owner and driver of the pickup, who are material witnesses in the case, have remained absent and no evidence is led. The insurance company made all efforts to locate the driver,” said the Presiding Officer.
