LawFinder.news
LawFinder.news

Thane MACT rejects Rs 50 lakh claim in crane accident, cites trespassing by victim

LAW FINDER NEWS NETWORK | April 13, 2026 at 12:29 PM

Thane, Apr 13 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) in Maharashtra's Thane district dismissed a Rs 50 lakh compensation claim from the family of a 32-year-old dock employee, crushed to death by a crane in 2019, stating that he had trespassed into a prohibited area without safety gear.


MACT member K P Shrikhande observed that while the death of the victim, Kiran Lahanu Korade, was tragic, the petitioners failed to prove rash or negligent driving by the crane operator.


A copy of the order passed on April 8 was made available on Monday.


The court noted that the accident occurred in a restricted "no man's zone" at a container freight station (CFS) in Dronagiri, Uran.


It held that Korade, a dock clerk with a logistics firm, had trespassed into the prohibited area at the Seabird Marine Services CFS and was responsible for the accident that occurred on May 3, 2019.


His wife and other family members alleged that a crane was driven negligently and crushed him.


The tribunal, however, found that the deceased had ignored safety warnings, including a red-lettered sign on the machine stating "stay 10 m away from this machine".


It also noted that the crane operator's focus is naturally on stacking heavy containers at a height, making it difficult to spot unauthorised persons on the ground.


The tribunal further held that the insurance company, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., was not liable due to a breach of policy terms, as the crane driver did not have the required authorisation on his driving licence.


The court also took note of the fact that the premises owner, Seabird Marine Services Pvt. Ltd., had already paid Rs 31 lakh to the deceased man's wife as a full and final settlement.


While the judge clarified that receiving such a settlement from a property owner does not legally disqualify a victim from seeking statutory compensation from a vehicle owner, the lack of negligence on the driver's part rendered the petition unmaintainable. 

Share this article: