The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has recently ordered the director, information and public relation, Mantralaya, to pay over ₹12 lakh to the family of a man who died after being hit by the director’s SUV near Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus three years ago.
The victim, Salman Khan (23), was a carpenter. On December 9, 2016, while he was crossing the road, a Tata Sumo hit him. He was taken to St. George Hospital where he succumbed to injuries.
A criminal case was registered at MRA Marg police station under Sections 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others), and 304 A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code.
The victim’s family, who is living in Wadala (East), demanded ₹35 lakh as compensation. But the director contested it, and said it was Khan who was guilty of absolute negligence and therefore the claim was not maintainable.
The tribunal presided over by S.D. Raikar, Chairman, said, “The fact of death of Khan because of the injuries sustained in the accident in question is not disputed. The opposite party was the owner of the said vehicle and therefore is liable to pay compensation.”
The victim’s earning was contested because there was no proof to show how much he earned. Therefore after examining a few witnesses, the tribunal took ₹8,000 on record as his monthly income.
The tribunal said, “Since the deceased was 23 years old, 40% of his income is required to be added for future prospects. If 40% is added towards future prospects, then his income comes to ₹11,200 per month. If this figure is multiplied by 12, then his yearly income comes to ₹1,34,400. At the time of accident, the victim was a bachelor, so half of the amount has to be deducted towards his personal expenses. After the deduction, contribution of the deceased towards family comes to ₹67,200. After applying multiplier 18, loss of dependency worked out as ₹12,09,600; ₹15,000 under the head, loss to estate; and ₹15,000 under the head, funeral expenses.”
The order read, “The rate of interest is required to suit the prevailing rate of interest at the time of accident and in this matter, the accident occurred in 2016. There is no straitjacket formula for awarding interest at a particular rate. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case. Having regards to the year of accident, grant of interest at 8% per annum will be just and proper. The family is therefore entitled to receive a compensation of ₹12,39,600.”
