Claim halved as biker didn't have helmet on





The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on Wednesday halved the compensation to be paid to the kin of a biker who died on being hit by a cab in 2009, after it found he was not wearing a helmet at the time of the mishap. While the actual compensation worked out by the tribunal amounted to Rs 12.30 lakh, owing to the biker Jamil Shaikh's (23) contributory negligence, his family was awarded a compensation of Rs 6.15 lakh. The fleet cab company and the insurance firm will additionally have to pay Rs 2.30 lakh in interest.

Observing that the cab driver was not solely responsible for the accident , the tribunal said, "The unfortunate death of the deceased must be attributed to the non-wearing of a protective headgear by him, as his death has been found to have been caused by haemorrhage and shock due to head injury. The deceased should be held to have definitely contributed to his death by not wearing protective headgear while riding a motorcycle on a public road." Shaikh is survived by his wife, mother and a five-yearold son, all of whom filed the application before the tribunal in November 2009. The family alleged that on August 28, 2009, at about 6.15am when Shaikh was riding his bike at Vikhroli, he was hit by the cab, which the family claimed was driven negligently and was speeding.

A case was registered against the driver with the Vikhroli po

lice. The family said that Shaikh worked at an amusement park at Thane and earned a monthly salary of Rs 8,000.

The insurance company submitted that it was not liable to pay the amount as Shaikh had brought upon the accident himself, as he halted without giving any signal or any indication. It alleged that he gave virtually no chance to the driver of the cab to maneuver the vehicle to avert the impact.

The tribunal however, relied on the statement of the

witness who had found Shaikh lying injured by the side of his motorcycle. The witness said the bike was badly damaged at both ends and the cab was damaged in the front. The tribunal observed that the FIR clearly pointed to rash and negligent driving on the part of the cab driver. "I must, therefore, hold that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor taxi and non-wearing of protective headgear by the deceased in breach of the provision of the Motor Vehicles Act," the tribunal said.





Insurance claim's rejection due to `delay' not alright





`Treatment Went On For A Yr After Hospitalization'

A consumer forum has ruled in favour of a woman whose insurance claim was rejected by her insurer because it was filed 416 days after hospitalization instead of within the 30-day deadline.

The forum found that the complainant was under continuous treatment for her injury for more than a year.

It recently chastised National Insurance Co Ltd for repudiating the claim on technical grounds that "cannot be held as just and proper". "The insurance company adopted (an) unfair trade practice," said the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, while directing the firm to pay Worli-based Jyoti Raut the insurance amount of Rs 39,439 along with compensation of Rs 12,000.

Raut was admitted in hospital on February 9, 2010, after she had a fall. When she was discharged the next day, Raut informed the insurer about the fall and the need for hospitalization and requested it for a claim form. She alerted it that as her treatment was on-going she would file the claim upon its completion. This point was iterated in letters on March 9, 2010, and March 7, 2011.

On April 25, 2011, Raut sent a letter claiming expenses incurred on the treatment that continued till March 31, 2011.

Two months later, however, the company repudiated the claim on the ground that the papers were not submitted within 30 days from the completion of the hospital treatment.

Raut lodged many protests with the insurer but when they were ignored she filed a complaint before the forum on July 11, 2012. The insurer, in response, argued there was no evidence to prove her continuous treatment till March 2011. "The last receipt of the doctor's clinic is dated September 9, 2010. It shows the treatment was completed," the company claimed.

The forum however pointed to bills showing that Raut had purchased medicines "on doctor's advice" on five different dates till February 2011.

"The evidence shows the complainant was under treatment till the end of March 2011 and that she incurred an expenditure of Rs 39,439 on treatment," it said.

It observed that Raut had informed the insurer that the doctor had advised her to continue treatment till March 2011. Thus, "it cannot be said that there was delay in submitting the claim on the part of the complainant," the forum said.