MACT awards Rs 21 crore to families of HUL managers killed in 2018 road accident

According to presiding officer SE Bangar, “financial dependency in a matrimonial household is not an all-or-nothing concept”.

According to the order which directs for a 7.5 per cent per annum interest in both cases, the total amount awarded to both families comes to a total of Rs 21 crore after including the interest. The tribunal granted a sum of Rs 8.92 crore to the family of Barve along with interest of 7.5 per cent from the date of filing of the case until the family received the amount while the family of Wadalkar was found entitled to compensation of Rs 4.42 crore with the same interest.

The “grave” and “fatal” motor vehicle accident had happened on July 1, 2018, on Mumbai-Goa National Highway Number 66 near Dabhil School, Taluka Khed in District Ratnagiri. The families claimed that both the victims were travelling together in a car along with two other colleagues and suffered multiple grievous injuries when the car collided head-on with a tanker. It came on record that the tanker was coming from the opposite direction at excessive speed and, despite the road being straight, it came onto the wrong side and crashed into the car. The tanker driver allegedly fled the spot and did not report the accident.

It came on record that while Barve had “succumbed” to his injuries, Wadalkar had initially survived the impact and was taken for emergency medical treatment and was later on shifted to a hospital in Mumbai on July 2, 2018. However, despite intensive treatment extending over several days, he passed away on July 11, 2018, because of his multiple injuries.

Both families claimed that the victims were highly qualified and professionally successful with excellent career prospects and were working with Hindustan Unilever Limited. The families claimed and sought compensation for “loss of dependency, prospects, consortium, funeral expenses, loss of estate and interest”.

The motor accidents tribunal was of the view that “The contention that because the road was straight the Swift driver ought to have avoided the tanker also cuts both ways. A driver proceeding on his correct carriageway is ordinarily entitled to proceed upon the assumption, until circumstances reasonably indicate otherwise, that an oncoming heavy tanker will remain on its lawful side. There is no evidence before the Tribunal showing that the Swift driver had sufficient time and distance, after the tanker entered his lane, to avoid impact”.