Tagged: compensation

Justice Delayed? Court Says Sorry To A Woman Seeking Compensation For His Dead Son For 24 Years 0

Justice Delayed? Court Says Sorry To A Woman Seeking Compensation For His Dead Son For 24 Years

How often do we get to see a court apologising to people who fight their cases for decades? Well, not quite often. However, Madras High Court has done this to a woman who had been seeking compensation for her dead son since 1993.

“Sorry, we have kept you waiting this long to secure your right,” The Madras HC told the petitioner.

Justice N Seshasayee, rejecting an appeal filed by a public sector insurance company against the award of Rs 3.4 lakh by a motor accident claims tribunal (MACT), said on Friday:

Justice

AFP

 “This accident had taken place in May 1993. It is little over 24 years now and this mother is not compensated yet. She still awaits her remedy. And, whatever remedy that has been provided to her by the tribunal may have been possibly delayed further due to the pendency of this appeal…The insurance company which objects to a passing of the award on a point of maintainability of the claim before this court is yet to part with its money. It reflects an attempt to write off the life of a citizen and the support he could have given to his parent as valueless,” said Justice Seshasayee.

It all began when Bakkiam’s lorry driver-son Lokeshwaran was killed on May 18, 1993, when his lorry had a head-on collision with a bus belonging to the state transport corporation. He died on the spot. For some reason, instead of moving a motor accident claims tribunal for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, Bakkiam sought to get compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation (WC) Act, 1923. As WC Act is invoked mostly in cases of industrial accidents, her claim was rejected summarily.

Later, instead of filing an appeal, she filed a fresh application in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for Rs 5 lakh as compensation. The National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the lorry, opposed the application saying since she had elected to make a claim under the WC Act, a second claim before MACT was not maintainable. 

The tribunal rejected objections, and awarded Rs 3.47 lakh as compensation. It said the sum should be paid by Lokeshwaran’s employer and the state transport corporation in equal proportion. Aggrieved by the award, the insurer moved the present appeal.

Justice Seshasayee, dismissing it, said that while forums discussed legal semantics on burden of proof, the fact remained that no compensation had been paid to the aggrieved mother. He also pointed out that the first claim made by Bakkiam was rejected solely on the basis of suspected identity of the victim who died in the accident. He then directed authorities to deposit the compensation sum within four weeks.

Don’t Miss

PROMOTED STORIES

COLOMBIA

Relax and let us boost your website traffic

SmartOwner

Earn quarterly payouts by funding a premium asset today.

SmartOwner

The secret NRIs are using to grow their wealth…

My Snoring Solution

End Your Nightly Snoring Nightmare With This Simple Solution

TV Frog

Simple Box Lets You Watch Everything For Free

SoleTrader.com

We’ve built all Soletraders in the UK a professional websi..

0

Delhi road accident victim’s family get Rs 16 lakh compensation

  • Delhi road accident victim’s family get Rs 16 lakh compensation

    Summary: (Representational Image)The family members of a 25-year-old man, who died in a road accident involving a rashly driven truck, have been awarded a compensation of over Rs 16 lakh by a motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) here. The tribunal directed the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs 16.64 lakh to the family of the man. Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) directed the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs 16.64 lakh to the family of the man. (Representational Image) Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) directed the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs 16.64 lakh to the family of the man. 1 (truck driver) was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

    Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) directed the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs 16.64 lakh to the family of the man. (Representational Image) Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) directed the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs 16.64 lakh to the family of the man. (Representational Image) The family members of a 25-year-old man, who died in a road accident involving a rashly driven truck, have been awarded a compensation of over Rs 16 lakh by a motor accident claims tribunal (MACT) here. The tribunal directed the Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs 16.64 lakh to the family of the man. Victim Vikas Kushvaha, who was working as a gardener, is survived by his wife, two kids — aged four years and one, parents and two minor siblings. “Considering the testimony of the eye witness… I am of the opinion that as a whole, it is clear that respondent no.

    1 (truck driver) was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. To my mind, the petitioners (family members) have been able to prove that the driver caused fatal injuries to the deceased,” MACT Presiding Officer Raj Kumar said. The man’s family members, in the plea for compensation, said that on the day of incident in June 2014, Kushvaha was riding his bicycle and his brother was following him on another bicycle and proceeding towards Tilak Nagar to sell plants around 6 am. When the victim reached Outer Ring road near Vikas Marg, the rashly and negligently driven truck came at a high speed and hit him from behind. Due to the impact, he fell on the road and came under the rear wheel of the truck and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to a hospital where he died the same day. The tribunal said the truck driver and the owner have neither examined themselves, nor filed any written statement. “As such, to my mind, they have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not rash or negligent at the time of accident,” the presiding officer said. The family had sought compensation of Rs 35 lakh saying they were totally dependent on Kushvaha, who was earning Rs 12,000 per month, and all their expenses were being met by his income. For all the latest Cities News, download Indian Express App.

    Source: http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/delhi-road-accident-victims-family-get-rs-16-lakh-compensation-4733305/

    Subscribe to Delhi News[1]

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.[2]

References

  1. ^ Subscribe to Delhi News (www.nyoooz.com)
  2. ^ comments powered by Disqus. (disqus.com)
1

Truck Driver’s New Jersey Workers Compensation Lawsuit Revived on Appeal

Trenton, NJA former New Jersey truck driver whose workers compensation[1] claim has been zig-zagging through the courts has seen his workers compensation lawsuit revived by the New Jersey Appellate Division.

Truck Driver’s New Jersey Workers Compensation Lawsuit Revived on AppealThe plaintiff in the workers compensation law case is Brian Hejda. According to court documents, Hejda was a commercial truck driver with Bell Container Corp. before he sustained an injury to his knee and could no longer undertake driving duties. The plaintiff asserted the injury was sustained on the job, thus qualifying him for workers compensation under workers compensation law.

The injury was sustained in August, 2012. Following a medical assessment it was determined that Hejda could return to work only for light duty – in other words, desk work – as the injury to his knee dictated that he could not return to the truck cab without surgery.

It was not stated in court documents whether his workers compensation injury was determined to be permanent, or temporary. However, it is inferred that surgery would return his knee to full function, and it is presumed that Hejda underwent the required surgery to repair his knee injury – a procedure which would ultimately allow him to eventually make a return to the truck cab.

According to court documents Hejda initially reported to work following his knee injury with medical orders from his doctors for desk work. Bell, however, allegedly informed him that no desk work was available to him.

In the fall of that year, Hejda filed a workers compensation claim with the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Workers Compensation. That followed a determination by an orthopedic specialist that the plaintiff required surgery, but Hejda was nonetheless cleared to return to work over the interim on light duty.

Bell, it has been reported, responded to Hejda’s workers compensation claim with a denial that Hejda’s injury was sustained while on the job. In the meantime, Hejda consulted another medical specialist who agreed that Hejda required surgery to repair the injury to his knee, but for the time being cleared him for light-duty work, as the first examiner had done.

Thus informed, Hejda reported for work daily for the week ending February 15, 2013. Court documents showed he was given little to do. It is alleged that when Hejda reported for work the following week, he was let go.

Hejda’s union – Local 813 of the International Teamsters –filed a grievance against Bell in February, 2013 alleging various violations to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Hejda’s union maintained with Bell. Amongst Hejda’s claims, he sought lost wages and overtime, workers compensation and full re-instatement.

Court heard that Hejda eventually acquired a certification from a medical examiner clearing him to operate a commercial vehicle, only to be met with an accusation from Bell that Hejda had obtained the recertification under false pretenses.

Bell took the matter to arbitration and won the day, with the arbitrator ruling that Hejda had not sufficiently proven that his employer had violated his union’s CBA.

Hejda responded with a complaint to the New Jersey Department of Labor’s Office of Special Compensation Funds, alleging discrimination. A Monmouth County Superior Court judge dismissed his complaint.

READ MORE WORKERS’ COMP LEGAL NEWS

In the meantime Hejda had provided yet another certification to Bell that purported to comply with regulatory requirements under the US Department of Transportation Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation for recertification as a commercial vehicle driver.

Bell responded with an offer of a job as a night switcher, but declined his request and qualification to put him back in the truck cab.

Hejda responded with a Law Division complaint that was initially dismissed, then revived on appeal. The New Jersey Appellate Division ruled that the complaint wasn’t preempted by federal labor law because it wasn’t related to his CBA. Hejda continues to hold that he was fired from his job for seeking workers compensation benefits under workers compensation law.

The case is Brian Hejda v. Bell Container Corp., Case No. A-3502-14T1, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.

References

  1. ^ workers compensation (www.lawyersandsettlements.com)