Thane Tribunal Rejects Swiggy Delivery Executive's Accident Claim

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Thane has dismissed a Rs 1 lakh compensation claim filed by a Swiggy delivery executive who was injured after the scooter he was riding skidded due to a punctured tyre. Presiding Member R.V. Mohite ruled that the claimant, Shekhar Bhima Sanap, was not entitled to compensation from the insurer because he was riding his wife's vehicle, thereby stepping into the shoes of the owner rather than acting as a third party.

The accident occurred on February 1, 2020, at approximately 2:30 am. Sanap was returning home on the scooter when a tyre puncture caused the vehicle to skid, resulting in serious injuries.

Following the accident, Sanap was initially admitted to the Balasaheb Thackeray Trauma Centre. He was later shifted to Bhabha Hospital and subsequently underwent further medical treatment at Rajawadi Hospital.

Sanap approached the tribunal seeking compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. He claimed he had incurred medical expenses of around Rs 30,000 and suffered permanent partial disability affecting his mobility. A doctor testifying on his behalf assessed his permanent partial disability at 39 per cent and stated that an additional surgery costing approximately Rs 1 lakh would be required to remove implants.

However, the tribunal observed that the disability certificate was not issued by Sanap's treating doctor. Furthermore, there was no evidence to establish that his earning capacity had been reduced in proportion to the certified disability.

The insurance company, Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd., opposed the claim. The insurer argued that because the scooter was owned by Sanap's wife, his use of the vehicle meant he stepped into the owner's shoes. Under the law, he could not be classified as a third party entitled to compensation under the policy.

The tribunal noted that the scooter was covered under a package policy issued by Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. This policy is designed to indemnify the owner against liability towards third parties and paid drivers.

Since Sanap was neither a third party nor a paid driver, but was instead using his wife's vehicle, Presiding Member Mohite held that he could not claim compensation under Section 163-A, leading to the dismissal of the petition.