Chennai: Seventy-year-old Rathnam (name changed) who lived in the outskirts of the city, had not received compensation from uninsured truck owners who were fatally knocked down his son near Chengalpet two years ago.
To add insult to injury, the driver of Rajasthan was ordered for causing death from negligence, but was released because there were no eyewitnesses that appeared in court.
Rathnam case is not an anomaly.
Less than 1% of these cases produce confidence, while others accumulate for years.
According to data from the Department of Transportation, 33,846 fatal cases listed under the category of death causes due to negligence under the prosecution test (PT) and 9,639 cases were being investigated.
In the non-fatal category, 38,049 cases were being investigated, while 48,019 cases were locked in court.
One of the main reasons for delays in prosecution in case of accidents is the absence of eyewitnesses for several reasons.
“In the case of accidents, it is difficult to get eyewitnesses, because people are usually not advancing to say that they see an accident, afraid of the trial protracted before the court,” said Advocate V S Semesh.
Another reason for cases of accumulating for years, according to lawyers, is organizational arrangements from the police department, which are different in urban and rural areas.
For example, in Chennai, there are separate traffic wings (investigations) to handle traffic accident cases.
The same thing does not occur in the district, where the police station handles legal and traffic cases and traffic accidents in their jurisdiction.
However, the case of traffic accidents is not their priority.
“Because all cases are under one wing, it becomes difficult for us to appoint people to speed up the case.
Preferences vary during the crisis,” said a senior police officer.