MACT

Even though dense fog, many no of person died, unless he drives under liquor influence or without a valid D/L 3O4 IPC doesn't arises.. he can quash that charge.. 304A only

for further assistance come for consultation.. See 'ADVOCATES' Tab, find me now in 2nd of list and click consultation tab.. Very affordable fees..

Please contact your local lawyer. It is a case covered under section 304 IPC as the truck driver was very well aware that by the act of rash driving in the for death could be caused and inspite of the knowledge of this fact he drived rashly..

IN THIS CASE TRUCK DRIVER CRUSHED 9 PPL TO DEATH DUE TO DENSE FOG

Its may be because the driver was Liquor drunk.. New Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, 2016 has such clause.. so 304.. However it will not affect ur insurance claim, since u r a 3rd party.. However add driver (in case not a owner) also as a party..

IT'S A CASE U/S 304 IPC NOT U/S 304-A IPC

Whether the case was registered u/s 304 IPC (Punishment for culpable homicide)or 304 A IPC (Causing death due to rash and negligent act) ? please clarify. As regards second part of your question, yes it is maintainable.

Go thro Sarala verma case and NIC vs Pranay Sethi Cases..

3rd party claim is maintainable before MACT.. His legal heir will be awarded full compensation in 95% cases.. However subject to documents.. Case laws needed only when question of law arises.. No case law needed for this..

CASE U/S 304 IPC IS AN ACCIDENT? OR 304-A IPC. IN THIS CASE DECEASED IS 3RD PARTY