Mumbai MACT orders BEST to pay Rs 31.09 lakh to mother of student killed in Malad

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal MACT Mumbai has directed BEST to pay R3109 lakh with 75 per cent annual interest to the mother of Farheen Rizwi Khan a 20yearold biotechnology student who was fatally knocked down by a BEST bus near Malwani Depot in Malad West on September 16 2023In its October 9 2026 order tribunal member RR Patwari fixed Farheenrsquos notional monthly income at R20000 and held that the driver had failed to adequately explain how she came under the bus while it was negotiating a turnThe award includes Rs 3024 lakh for loss of dependency and R84700 under conventional heads including loss of filial consortium loss of estate and funeral expenses BEST has been directed to pay the amount within four weeks The tribunal held that the evidence established that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of BEST bus MH01LA6908It rejected BESTrsquos contention that Farheen was solely responsible for the accident The compensation will carry 75 per cent annual interest from the date the claim application was filed until realisation The amount is to be transferred to her motherrsquos separate bank account within four weeksDriver could not explain how student came under busThe accident occurred around 7 am on September 16 2023 when Farheen was walking near Gate No 8 of Malwani bus depot A BEST bus struck her while turning towards the depot She was rushed to Shatabdi Hospital where she was declared brought deadMalwani police registered a case Crime No 12252023 that day and later chargesheeted BEST driver Mahadev Eknath SasaneBEST denied negligence arguing that the driver was travelling at 5 kmph when an autorickshaw distracted him and that the pedestrian was at faultThe tribunal rejected the defence noting that the driver admitted during crossexamination that he did not know how Farheen had been hit or which part of the bus had struck herIt observed that heavy vehicle drivers must remain vigilant while negotiating turns and that driving at a low speed alone does not establish due care The tribunal also held that BESTrsquos departmental inquiry which was not produced before it would not determine negligence in the civil proceedings even if it had exonerated the driverTribunal considers studentrsquos earning potentialFarheen was pursuing biotechnology and also taught at an NGO She had scored 7380 per cent in her SSC examinations and 7267 per cent in HSC Her mother initially claimed that Farheen earned Rs 7000 a monthShe later told the tribunal that her daughter earned R15000 a month and could earn R30000 after completing her postgraduate studiesDespite the lack of formal income proof the tribunal held that Farheenrsquos earning capacity should not be assessed at a nominal figure Considering her age qualifications and academic performance it fixed her notional monthly income at Rs 20000After adding 40 per cent towards future prospects deducting 50 per cent for personal expenses and applying a multiplier of 18 the tribunal calculated the loss of dependency at R3024 lakhCompensation breakdownHeadAmountLoss of dependency Rs 3024000Loss of filial consortiumRs 48400Loss of estateRs 18150Funeral expensesRs 18150Total compensationRs 3108700How loss of dependency was calculatedParticularsCalculationAmountAnnual notional incomeRs 20000 times 12Rs 240000Future prospects 40Rs 240000 times 40Rs 96000Annual income including future prospectsRs 240000 Rs 96000Rs 336000Deduction for personal expenses 50Rs 336000 times 50Rs 168000Annual contribution to familyRs 336000 minus Rs 168000Rs 168000Multiplier 18ndash Loss of dependencyRs 168000 times 18Rs 3024000The tribunal declined to award ambulance charges because receipts had not been producedThe claim was decided under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 The tribunal noted that negligence in such cases is assessed on the preponderance of probabilities rather than the criminal standard of proof It allowed the claim with costs and directed BEST to pay the award subject to the deduction of any interim compensation specified in the orderFamily unaware of verdictWhen contacted Farheenrsquos brother Sahil said he was unaware of the MACT order ldquoThe incident happened three years ago why are you inquiring about my late sister nowrdquo he askedAfter being informed of the verdict and the intention to visit the familyrsquos Malwani residence he said ldquoI will get back to yourdquo but did not respond subsequentlyBESTrsquos responseA senior BEST official speaking on condition of anonymity said ldquoOnce MACT passes an order our Claims Department examines it alongside the retainer advocate to decide whether to accept or challenge the award The file moves through Traffic Legal Audit and Accounts before seeking the General Managerrsquos approval If needed counsel may request an extension from the tribunalrdquoOn the criminal proceedings the official added ldquoThe MACT order strictly concerns compensation The driverrsquos criminal trial continues separately before the magistrate while the Traffic Department evaluates internal disciplinary action where warranted I am unaware if this specific file has reached us yetrdquo