<p>Thane: The compensation claim of the kin of a hydraulic operator who died after the vehicle collapsed on him was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Thane due to absence of proven negligence, a prime requisite of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.</p>.<p>Govind Bandgar was checking the hydraulic dumper of which he was the operator when it collapsed on him on May 7, 2005, leaving him severely injured. He died five years later on May 31, 2010, following which his wife Mahananda and three sons sought compensation.</p>.<p>In the order, MACT member SN Shah said the hydraulic dumper accident took place when Bandgar was operating it and no other vehicle was involved.</p>.<p>"If the negligence is of the deceased himself, his legal representatives cannot claim compensation under Section 166 for his own wrong," the judgment stated.</p>.<p>"Prime ingredient of Section 166 is negligence. If it is not proved whose negligence caused the accident, the petition fails at the threshold," the Tribunal further observed.</p>.<p>Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act mandates proof of negligence leading to injury or death due to the use of a motor vehicle, it asserted.</p>.<p>"From the facts on record, no ground or reason has been put forth to show, at least prima facie, that this petition is maintainable under Section 166," the MACT said while rejecting the compensation claim of Bandgar's kin. </p>
<p>Thane: The compensation claim of the kin of a hydraulic operator who died after the vehicle collapsed on him was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal of Thane due to absence of proven negligence, a prime requisite of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.</p>.<p>Govind Bandgar was checking the hydraulic dumper of which he was the operator when it collapsed on him on May 7, 2005, leaving him severely injured. He died five years later on May 31, 2010, following which his wife Mahananda and three sons sought compensation.</p>.<p>In the order, MACT member SN Shah said the hydraulic dumper accident took place when Bandgar was operating it and no other vehicle was involved.</p>.<p>"If the negligence is of the deceased himself, his legal representatives cannot claim compensation under Section 166 for his own wrong," the judgment stated.</p>.<p>"Prime ingredient of Section 166 is negligence. If it is not proved whose negligence caused the accident, the petition fails at the threshold," the Tribunal further observed.</p>.<p>Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act mandates proof of negligence leading to injury or death due to the use of a motor vehicle, it asserted.</p>.<p>"From the facts on record, no ground or reason has been put forth to show, at least prima facie, that this petition is maintainable under Section 166," the MACT said while rejecting the compensation claim of Bandgar's kin. </p>