The victim, identified as Ajal Praveen of Iringath, died while undergoing treatment at a private hospital in Kozhikode late on Tuesday. Meppayur police registered the case against his father, Praveen, 50, who is recorded as the scooter’s owner.
The accident occurred at approximately 9.30 pm on Tuesday near Narakkod Junction at Madathilkulangara, within Meppayur police station limits. Two other people travelling on the scooter were injured and received medical attention. The precise circumstances leading to the crash remain under investigation.
Police are examining accounts suggesting that the scooter encountered a dog crossing the road before the rider lost control. That explanation has not been established. Other accounts describe the vehicle striking a wall. Investigators have yet to determine the sequence of events or formally establish the immediate cause.
The boy was taken for medical treatment after the collision but succumbed to his injuries. Family accounts indicate that he had taken the scooter from home for a journey connected with a gym visit alongside friends. The accounts differ on whether the group was travelling to or returning from the gym.
The police action concerns the alleged decision to make a motor vehicle available to a minor, rather than a finding that the father caused the collision. The allegations against Praveen will have to be examined through the legal process, and registration of a case does not establish criminal liability.
Investigators have invoked provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing with minimum driving age, driving without a licence, responsibility for permitting unauthorised driving and offences committed by juveniles. The case also includes provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita concerning dangerous driving, negligent conduct causing death and acts endangering personal safety.
Section 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for action against the guardian or owner when a juvenile commits an offence under the legislation. It creates a presumption that the vehicle was used with the consent of the guardian or owner, although the law also provides safeguards against automatic punishment.
A guardian or owner can contest liability by demonstrating that the offence occurred without their knowledge or that they exercised due diligence to prevent it. Where the statutory conditions are met, the provision prescribes imprisonment extending to three years and a fine of Rs 25,000. Those penalties are not a determination of punishment in this case.
The legislation also provides for cancellation of the vehicle’s registration for 12 months following an offence by a juvenile. Separate restrictions apply to the eligibility of juveniles involved in such offences to obtain driving licences, subject to the applicable statutory provisions.
The action follows heightened scrutiny of police handling of another fatal collision involving an underage driver at Cheranalloor in Ernakulam district. That case involved a car allegedly driven by the teenage son of a judicial officer and prompted questions about whether the registered owner should face proceedings.
Police have faced criticism over the time taken to act against the car’s owner in that case. The comparison has brought attention to the speed with which officers proceeded against the registered owner of the scooter in Meppayur, although the circumstances and evidence in the two investigations are distinct.
The Cheranalloor investigation also prompted disciplinary action against police personnel over alleged procedural lapses.
(The article ‘Father booked over fatal scooter crash’ appeared first on Free Press Journal.)
Follow Arabian Post
Select Arabian Post as your preferred source on Google and MSN News for trusted business news and Arab politics and updates.
