NEW DELHI: A motorcyclist who suffered 75 per cent disability in his left leg after being hit by a vehicle has been awarded compensation of more than Rs 24 lakh by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT).
Mohd Amir was hit by a Tata Sumo on Republic Day last year when he was riding his motorcycle with two pillion riders on the DND road here.
MACT Presiding Officer Rajeev Bansal directed National Insurance Company Ltd, insurer of the Tata Sumo, to pay Amir Rs 24,35,816.
"As the claimant (Amir) has suffered 75 per cent permanent physical impairment in relation to his left lower limb, he would have undergone mental and physical shock," the tribunal said in its recent order.
Deciding the petition in his favour, it relied on documents submitted on record, including the FIR, chargesheet, medical report and mechanical inspection report of the vehicle.
It also rejected the contention of the insurance company that the victim was guilty of contributory negligence as he was carrying two pillion riders on the bike.
"Triple riding by itself does not raise the presumption that a person driving a motorcycle with two persons on pillion is rash or negligent or his triple riding contributes to the cause of the accident. A person having two persons on the pillion can still drive a motorcycle in a proper way," the tribunal said.
It said there was no evidence that the accident was caused due to two riders behind the victim.
"So, unless it is proved that the person who was having two persons on the pillion of his motorcycle had contributed in any manner to the cause of the accident, it cannot be said to be a case of contributory negligence," it said.
According to the petition, Amir was riding a bike with two persons sitting behind him on the afternoon of January 26, 2016.
When he reached the Sarai Kale Khan-DND flyway loop, a Tata Sumo, driven in a negligent manner, hit the bike. Though all three fell, the victim was grievously injured.
During the proceedings, the driver of the vehicle and the insurance company denied the allegations and blamed the victim for contributory negligence.