A family holiday in Mahabaleshwar turned into a tragedy for a 46-year-old stockbroker when he was hit and killed by a speeding bus. More than two years later, a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Maharashtra has awarded nearly Rs 6 crore, including interest, to his family, reported The Times of India.
But why was the compensation so high, and how did the tribunal arrive at the amount?
The deceased, Ghatkopar-based stockbroker Niraj Mehta, had travelled to Mahabaleshwar with his family and friends on January 26, 2024.
At around 6.45 pm, Mehta was standing near the roadside at the Mapro Garden parking area and helping an incoming car carrying his family and friends enter the parking space. A speeding bus with a Karnataka registration hit Mehta. He fell onto the road following the impact, while the bus driver fled the spot.
Mehta was taken to a hospital in Panchgani, where doctors declared him dead. A criminal case was subsequently registered against the driver.
The tribunal accepted the family’s case that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving.
One of the key issues during the compensation proceedings was Mehta’s income. The insurance company argued that his short-term capital gains from securities should be deducted while calculating his income.
The tribunal rejected the argument. It noted that Mehta had paid income tax on his gross income and relied on his income-tax returns to assess his annual income at Rs 40.8 lakh.
The income formed an important part of the compensation calculation, along with other factors considered by the tribunal.
The bus was insured with Shreeram General Insurance Company Ltd. The insurer argued that it should not be held liable because the bus driver allegedly did not have a valid driving licence and the vehicle was being operated without a permit.
The tribunal, however, rejected the defence.
It noted that the insurance company had not led evidence to establish that the policy conditions had actually been breached. As a result, the insurer was directed to pay the compensation.
The tribunal has divided the compensation among Mehta’s wife, two minor children and elderly parents. His wife will receive 40% of the compensation, while each of his two minor children will receive 20%. His parents will receive 10% each.
The shares belonging to the minor children will be kept in fixed deposits. Their mother will be allowed to withdraw the interest periodically for their maintenance.
The case highlights how compensation in a fatal road accident is assessed not just on the circumstances of the accident, but also on the financial contribution the deceased was making to the family.
In Mehta’s case, his income-tax returns and the tribunal’s assessment of his annual income at Rs 40.8 lakh played an important role in determining the compensation.