Rs 21 crore awarded to families of 2 HUL managers killed in 2018 Mumbai-Goa highway accident

A Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) has awarded a combined compensation of Rs 21 crore to the families of two senior Hindustan Unilever Ltd managers who died following the same road accident on the Mumbai-Goa highway in 2018.

According to a TOI report, the two separate orders reaffirmed that a widow's independent income does not take away her status as a legal representative or her right to claim compensation after the death of her husband. The awards are among the highest compensation amounts reported in accidental death cases in Maharashtra.

Two families awarded Rs 14 crore and Rs 7 crore

The first case involved 43-year-old Girish Barve, a factory manager who had an annual gross salary of around Rs 95 lakh. His family was awarded Rs 14 crore, including interest.


Barve's wife was earning around Rs 42,000 a month at the time.

Read more - Delhi couple’s bags arrived ripped open after flight; court orders airline to pay Rs 3.61 lakh

The second case concerned 45-year-old Rakesh Wadalkar, who worked as group safety, health and environment operations manager and earned approximately Rs 42 lakh a year. His dependants were awarded Rs 7 crore, including interest.

Wadalkar's wife was earning around Rs 80,000 a month.

In both cases, 40% of the compensation was awarded to the widows, with the remaining amount divided among the deceased employees' children and parents.

What happened in the 2018 Mumbai-Goa highway accident?

The fatal crash took place on July 1, 2018, on National Highway 66 near Dabhil School in Khed taluka of Ratnagiri district.

Barve was driving a car in which his colleagues Wadalkar, Vishal Matle and Rajesh Joshi were travelling. A tanker approaching from the opposite direction, driven by Vaibhav Bhoyate and owned by Shreyash Transport, collided head-on with the car.

Barve, who had worked with the company for around 20 years, suffered severe cranio-cerebral and other injuries and died at the spot.

Wadalkar survived the initial crash and was taken to BKL Walawalkar Hospital in Chiplun. He was later shifted to Bombay Hospital in Mumbai on July 2 but died from his injuries on July 11. He had been with the company for around 15 years.

Insurer challenged negligence claim

The families filed separate compensation claims in December 2018.

While the tanker owner did not contest the proceedings, the insurer disputed several aspects of the claims, including negligence, the deceased employees' income, dependency and the amount of compensation sought.

The insurer also argued that the widows had not witnessed the accident and that the head-on nature of the collision suggested that the car driver could also have been negligent. The tribunal rejected this argument.

“A head-on collision describes the geometry of impact; it does not automatically prove 50:50 negligence,”

The MACT relied on police records, the spot panchanama, medical documents and the chargesheet filed against the tanker driver. It noted that the police report described the road as straight and found that the tanker had moved onto the wrong side before colliding with the car.

Tribunal says Wadalkar could not be blamed

The tribunal made a separate observation in Wadalkar's case because he was a passenger in the car.

It said there was no evidence that he had any control over the vehicle or had contributed to the accident.

“Wadalkar...was not driving either vehicle. There is not a scintilla of evidence that he exercised control over the car or himself committed an act contributing to the collision,”

The tribunal therefore rejected any attempt to attribute negligence to him.

Why did the tribunal reject deduction of employer payments?

The insurer also sought to reduce the compensation by deducting payments allegedly made by the employer.

In Barve's case, it sought deduction of an alleged Rs 2.65 crore ex gratia payment, along with accident insurance benefits.

The tribunal refused, observing: “A bare entry described as ex gratia cannot justify deduction of such a substantial amount,”

In Wadalkar's case, the insurer sought deduction of Rs 1.6 crore paid by his employer.

The tribunal again rejected the argument, stating that it: “cannot deduct Rs 1.6 crore merely upon conjecture, particularly where such deduction would, as the insurer submits, make the compensation ‘nil’ notwithstanding a proved wrongful death of a highly paid 45-year-old professional”.

Tribunal says working widows can still claim compensation

One of the key observations in the two orders concerned the financial position of the deceased employees' wives.

The tribunal noted that the fact that the widows were employed did not mean their husbands' earnings had no financial contribution to the household.

The bench observed: “Matrimonial households cannot be approached by assuming that each earning spouse exists in an economically watertight compartment. The deceased’s income necessarily contributed to the family’s standard of living, housing, education, savings and security.”

The finding effectively recognised that household finances cannot always be assessed by treating the incomes of spouses as completely separate, particularly when the deceased was a significantly higher earner.


Inputs from TOI