Pune Municipal Corporation told to pay Rs 16.35 lakh with interest to accident victim's dad

PUNE: A city civil court has directed PMC to pay Rs16.35 lakh compensation with 16% interest per annum from November 23, 2016, to an Aurangabad businessman for neglecting its "statutory obligation" of proper maintenance of roads resulting in the death of his son (20) in an accident around 2.20am on June 26, 2016, near the Shivajinagar court.

The overall amount payable with interest works out to be more than Rs32 lakh so far and would grow till the actual payment. "This is a rare order of such huge compensation with interest passed by a civil court under the law of torts, which governs the remedies for civil wrongs and provides for liability for a wrongful act, whether done accidentally or intentionally. The injured or the aggrieved party is compensated by the payment for damages," lawyer Ajit Kulkarni, who represented the petitioner, Dinesh Fulchand Soni, told TOI.
"We had opted for the civil court proceeding instead of moving the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for damages," he said.
The victim, Yash Soni, was riding a scooter from Sancheti Hospital Chowk to Kamgar Putla when the fatal accident took place (see box).
On November 23, 2016, the victim's father moved the civil court seeking Rs1 crore compensation from PMC on the grounds that it had failed to fulfil its statutory obligation of properly maintaining the roads, which resulted in the death of his son. The PMC had contended, among other things, that the victim was at fault for riding the scooter recklessly at high speed.
PMC told to pay ₹16.35L to accident victim's dad
The court of civil judge senior division S S Shinde, however, referred to the unshakable evidence recorded by key witness Mohit, who had deposed that they were proceeding at a speed of 30/40kmph and that there were no streetlights around the site. It observed that inquest panchnama and other investigation papers corroborated the deposition and it would be incorrect to say the scooter was driven at a high speed. The court also dwelt on speed limit and how it could vary from different places and road conditions.
The court observed that apart from the police constable's mention in the first information report (FIR) that the scooter was being driven recklessly, the PMC did not produce on record any strong evidence in support of its case.
The court referred to the written submissions by the PMC and observed that it was not the civic body's case that the road stretch did not fall under its jurisdiction.
The spot panchnama, too, mentioned that the road divider iron grille and the same reflected in the map of the accident spot, it said. "It was the PMC's obligation to keep the road divider iron grille in proper shape, but its officials and workers failed to address the issue, thus resulting in the accident," the court said.
The PMC now has the option of either paying the compensation or move an appeal before the Bombay high court to seek stay on the effect and implementation of the civil court's order.