MACT awards Rs 49 lakh compensation to 7 victims of road accident

Thane: The Thane Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has awarded a collective compensation of Rs 49.32 lakh to the families of two men who were killed and five other persons injured in a road accident in 2018.

The victims, all devotees of Saibaba, were accompanying a 'Sai Palkhi' (palanquin) while going on foot towards Shirdi on December 22, 2018.

A Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus hit them from behind near Devpur Phata on Sinnar-Shirdi road, the petitioners' advocate, S M Pawar, told the tribunal.

Two persons were killed and some others injured in the incident.

MACT Chairman and Principal District Judge S B Agrawal, in the order, passed on March 7, resolved seven claims pertaining to the families of the two deceased and five other persons who were injured.

A copy of the order was made available on Monday.

The tribunal said the compensation, also including interest at the rate of 7.50 per annum (from the date of filing of the claim), is to be initially paid by the insurance company of the bus and recovered later from the MSRTC.

The parents of 19-year-old Aniket Deepak Mehatre, who died in the accident, were awarded a compensation of Rs 25 lakh.

Aniket had been employed and getting a monthly salary of Rs 30,000 before his death.

The mother and brother of Andru Anthony Kini (32), who was also killed in the incident, were awarded a compensation of Rs 16,82,800.

Andru was earning Rs 50,000 per month at the time of his demise.

The tribunal also directed that a certain portion of the compensation amount be invested in fixed deposits for a specified period and the remainder be handed over to the claimants.

The MACT also awarded compensations, ranging from Rs 50,000 to Rs 4 lakh, to five other persons based on their injuries and the impact on their livelihoods.

The tribunal, while arriving at its decision, took into account various factors, including the eyewitness accounts and police reports, which pointed to the bus driver's negligence even as the vehicle's insurer tried to contest the claim based on the driver's license validity and possible intoxication.