Mumbai MACT rejects BEST’s compensation claim over alleged electricity pole damage caused by a JCB machine in 2016 | GPlus (Representational Image)
Mumbai, March 3: The Mumbai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has dismissed a claim filed by the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking (BEST) seeking Rs 21,083 in damages for an electricity pole allegedly damaged by a JCB machine in 2016.
The order was passed by Tribunal Member Smt. R. R. Patwari in a seven-page judgment. The tribunal noted, “It is pertinent to note here that the accident occurred in the year 2016 whereas, the claim application is filed in the year 2022, after around six years. There is no explanation given by the claimant for such delay. BEST is not entitled to damages as claimed and therefore, the claim application deserves to be dismissed.”
Claim filed under Motor Vehicles Act
BEST had filed the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against M/s New India Roadways, the alleged owner of the JCB. It contended that on May 5, 2016, the machine struck Electricity Pole No. 19 to 17 at G.H. Purandare Marg, causing damage. The incident was reported to Agripada Police Station on May 7, 2016.
According to BEST, it incurred Rs 21,083 towards repairs and sought recovery from the vehicle owner. The opposite firm remained absent despite service of notice, and the matter proceeded ex parte.
Tribunal cites lack of proof of negligence
However, the tribunal held that BEST failed to establish rash and negligent driving — a mandatory requirement under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which is based on fault liability.
The tribunal observed that the traffic inspector examined by BEST was not an eyewitness. No eyewitness was produced, and no FIR was registered against the driver for rash or negligent driving.
The only document relied upon was a station diary entry from Agripada Police Station. The tribunal noted that the entry recorded damage to the electricity pole during road construction work but did not mention negligence.
It further observed that the diary indicated the JCB was engaged in road work undertaken by BEST at the time. There was no material on record to conclusively establish ownership of the vehicle or attribute negligence to the opposite party.
Also Watch:
The tribunal also highlighted inconsistencies in the date of the accident. While BEST stated it occurred on May 5, 2016, the station diary referred to May 7, 2016. The order noted corrections and overwriting in the pleadings, and no police record was produced to substantiate the earlier date.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
