Mumbai, October 2, 2026: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Mumbai, has directed United India Insurance Company Ltd and the owner of a truck to jointly pay Rs 18.63 lakh with 7.5% annual interest to the family of a watchman who died after sustaining fatal injuries at the Mumbai Port premises in December 2020.
Claim By Deceased’s Family
The claim was filed by the deceased Husenuddeen Nuruddeen Khan’s widow and three sons under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Khan was working as a watchman with Latif & Sons and was posted at 17-I.D., Indira Dock, Mumbai Port Trust. During the early hours of December 21, 2020, he was found critically injured near a truck and was taken to Sir J.J. Hospital, where he was declared dead.
The insurer disputed liability, pointing out that there was no eyewitness to the incident. It also suggested that Khan could have been murdered and that his death was subsequently projected as a road accident.
The insurer further alleged that Khan was negligent for sleeping in an area where heavy vehicles were moving and challenged his claimed monthly income of Rs 17,000.
Tribunal Rejects Homicide Theory
Rejecting these contentions, the Tribunal held that a motor accident claim need not be proved through an eyewitness and is decided on the preponderance of probabilities. It relied on the Port entry records showing the truck had entered the premises, Khan’s employment identity card, the presence of the truck near the injured man, medical records and the subsequent police investigation.
The Tribunal also rejected the insurer’s theory of homicide, observing that there was no evidence of a murder, struggle, weapon, shifting of the body or any forensic material suggesting homicide. The theory was found to be a hypothesis unsupported by affirmative evidence.
No Contributory Negligence
On negligence, the Tribunal observed that a driver manoeuvring a heavy commercial vehicle in darkness has a duty to take reasonable precautions, particularly because of the vehicle’s blind spots. It also held that the deceased’s presence at the Port premises, where he was employed as a night watchman, by itself could not establish contributory negligence.
“The deceased's occupational presence in the B.P.T. premises does not, without evidence concerning the exact physical layout, establish that he negligently slept upon an active carriageway. Most importantly, the hypothesis of a planned murder followed by placement of the deceased so as to obtain insurance compensation has no affirmative evidentiary foundation. The Courts and Tribunals must keep an open mind to a reasonable alternative hypothesis. They are not, however, permitted to substitute speculation for evidence. The proved circumstances must therefore prevail over an unsupported possibility,” the order copy reads.
Compensation Calculation
While the family claimed Khan earned Rs 17,000 per month, the Tribunal found no salary certificate or other independent income proof. However, it rejected the insurer’s suggestion of fixing his income at just Rs 3,000 per month and assessed his monthly income at Rs 15,000, considering his occupation, Mumbai employment and the December 2020 period.
Considering his age at about 52 years, the Tribunal applied a multiplier of 11 and awarded Rs 16.33 lakh towards loss of dependency, Rs 1.93 lakh towards consortium, Rs 18,150 towards loss of estate and Rs 18,150 towards funeral expenses, taking the total compensation to Rs 18,63,400.
Also Watch:
The Tribunal directed the insurer to satisfy the award within two months, after adjusting the Rs 50,000 already paid as interim/no-fault compensation. The widow has been tentatively allotted 55% of the compensation, while each of the three sons will receive 15%, subject to accounting for their respective consortium components.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
