HC allowed an appeal filed by one Prakash seeking compensation for his unborn child as his plea was ignored by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (MACT). The court, however, made it clear that the dead foetus cannot be compared with a grown-up child, because by then a child’s presence in the life of his or her parents has created enough memories for them to feel greater pain at the loss of their child. This pain will be lesser were an unborn child to die as in that case there will be no memories to cherish.
“This court holds that an unborn child — aged five months onwards in mother’s womb till its birth — is treated as equal to a child… the foetus is another life in a woman and loss of foetus is actually loss of child in the offing,” HC reasoned, while allowing the appeal and the compensation of Rs 2.5 lakh along with an interest rate of 7.5 per annum to Prakash.

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has awarded over Rs five lakh as compensation to a man whose right hand was crushed after it came under the rear wheel of a bus in an accident five years ago. Justice J R Midha enhanced the compensation from Rs 2.43 to Rs 5.76 lakh considering the medical reports which suggested that the self-employed victim had suffered 50% disability.
The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal after assesing the claim had awarded Rs 2.43 lakh to Tahir, who was earlier doing screen printing job, to compensate for loss of income. The High Court allowed Tahir’s appeal for enhancement of compensation after taking into account medical certificates which claimed that he suffered permanent disability rendering him unemployed. HC in its order, also directed that the amount be deposited in a bank as fixed deposit.

Not too many people are aware of some of the processes and procedures dealing with applying for compensation under the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, so here are some sites that provide more information on this area:

What is Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (link to article):

Who can report to MACT in case of accident ?
Victim himself or through Advocate,in the case of personal injury. Through advocate in case of minor applicant below the age of 18 years. Legal heirs themselves or through advocate in the case of death.The owner of the vehicle in the case of property damage.

Some queries related to the MACT (link to article, including the documents to be submitted):

Q. I had lodged a case for insurance on account of motor accident, which took place. The Tribunal held that the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to Rs. 20000/- only. Whether Tribunal is right in saying so and what is my remedy against said order?
A. If there is no evidence on the record to show that the liability of the Insurance Company was limited to Rs. 20,000/-, the finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. The liability of an Insurance company, unless there is a prohibition to same in a contract or otherwise, is unlimited You can challenge the said order before the High Court in appeal.

More details on applying to MACT (link to article):

Chapter 10 with Sections 140 to 144 provides for interim compensation on ‘No Fault’ Basis. According to this provision Rs. 50,000/- is to be given to the kith and kin of the deceased and Rs. 25,000/- to the grievously injured victim. The compensation under Section 140 is made payable if prima facie evidence of following is available;
(1) Accident by the offending vehicle;
(2) Offending vehicle being insured;
(3) Death or grievous injuries have been caused.

Sinha alleged when he approached the doctor on duty at Delhi airport, the matter was taken very casually and he was given a painkiller as first aid. The pain, however, become intolerable and Sinha had to consult a doctor at Diwan Chand Satya Pal Aggarwal X-Ray Clinic where he was advised x-ray. Later, he had to be treated at Fortis Hospital where his two fingers were plastered for three weeks. He also had to undergo physiotherapy. On account of serious injuries, he had to cancel his meetings in Delhi and later in Mumbai.
Quashing the plea, commission president Justice J D Kapoor said that the responsibility of passenger’s safety rests with the airline from the time he boards the aircraft to the time he reaches the terminal.

For frequent travelers or non-frequent travelers, a person almost always follows the dictates of personnel, whether on the ground or on the flight. Coaches available to take passengers to the terminal from the plane are also filled on the instructions of the airline, and passengers have very little discretion in this area. Given this, it is appropriate that the airline has been held responsible.

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an order of the national consumer commission awarding Rs 38.04 lakh compensation to the mother of a seven-year-old girl who died after she was sucked into an escalator at Delhi’s international airport in December 1999. The order marked a stinging rebuke to the Airports Authority of India which, despite strong evidence pointing to its callousness in not maintaining the escalator, had sought to dispute the compensation granted to Geeta Jethani.
While awarding the compensation, the commission had criticized the cussed attitude of AAI in questioning the compensation for a death which clearly resulted from its apathy, saying the case pointed to the extent “we have developed the tendency to deny the obvious, in litigation”. “Except admitting the trapping of a young child in the escalator, the AAI has tried to dispute its liability and deficiency in service. We do not know when we will change our jurisprudence which encourages such attitude of denials and protracts litigation and increases burden on adjudicating forums/courts,” Justice M B Shah, chairman of the commission, had said in his verdict.

The whole incident was extremely shocking when it happened. From my memory, investigation seemed to show that the escalator was not being maintained properly, and in addition, there was no immediate button to stop the escalator. It seems a default now that every escalator has a Red stop button that will immediately stop the escalator, but such was not the case at that point of time. It was only after that incident was there increased focus on making sure that the escalator can stop in an emergency.
The other major problem that becomes evident from this case is that nature of Government enterprises. There is an incredible amount of lethargy, work-saving, and passing the buck that happens. This very rarely gets pointed out since these are after all Government enterprises, but one hopes that more judgments like these will ensure that even Government run enterprises are responsible for ensuring safety at their premises and for ensuring that customer service is their motto. This is hopeful thinking, but one rarely knows whether such an attitude change could happen.