Bombay High Court
Mr. Madhukar Dnyanoba Shinde vs The Maharashtra State Road Tranpsort ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Shivkumar Dige
Bench: Shivkumar Dige
2025:BHC-AS:35164
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 703 OF 2015
Mr. Madhukar Dnyanoba Shinde
Age : 50 years, Occ : Nil
By and through his next friend
Mrs. Tejashri Madhukar Shinde
Age : 43 years, Occ : Household,
R/o. Nikhil, Government Colony,
Vishrambaug, Sangli, Tq. Miraj, Appellant
District : Sangli ... (Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1 The Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation
2 Mr. Pandurang Govind Shirsat
Age : 35 years, Occ : Driver
Both C/o. The Divisional Controller, Respondents
Sangli- Kolhapur Road, Sangli ... (Orig. Opponents)
Mr. Sarthak Diwan a/w. Mr. Aditya Ghadge i/b. Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni,
Advocates for the Appellant.
Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali i/b. G.S.Hegde & Associates, Advocate for
Respondent No.1-Corporation.
CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.
DATE : 7th AUGUST, 2025.
Judgment :
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant for
SHUBHADA enhancement of compensation.
SHANKAR
KADAM 2. It is contention of learned counsel for the claimant that the
Digitally signed by
SHUBHADA
SHANKAR KADAM claimant was serving as professor in Rayat Shikshan Sanstha's
Date: 2025.08.14
12:56:34 +0530
Padmaraje Vidyalaya and Junior College at Shirol and was drawing gross
1/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
salary of Rs.46,664/- per month. Due to accidental injuries, he has
suffered 70% permanent physical disability but his functional disability is
100%. The injury is caused to his brain. After the accident, he is
completely bed-ridden. The claim petition was filed through his next friend
i.e. his wife. Since the claimant was unable to come to Court the Tribunal
had appointed Court Commissioner and evidence of the claimant came to
be recorded through the Court Commissioner. Learned counsel further
submitted that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not
awarded loss of income and future prospects on the ground that the
claimant has taken voluntary retirement (for short "VRS") from his service.
Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has not considered
the fact that the claimant was forced to take VRS as he was unable to
continue in work due to his disability. Learned counsel further submitted
that had the claimant been continued in his service, he would have
become principal of the said college and his salary would have enhanced.
But due to disability, he was forced to quit his job before his retirement.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation on lower side under other
heads. Hence, requested to allow the appeal.
3. It is contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1-
Corporation that the claimant has opted for VRS and in view of the same,
the claimant had got benefits which would have accrued to the claimant in
various monthly intervals. Instead he has got the said huge amount.
Learned counsel further submitted that while computing the loss of
2/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
income, this Court has to consider as to what income he would have
earned in future. Since a part of the income has already been received by
the claimant under VRS, the same has to be deducted from the total loss
of income which ultimately is computed as the loss sustained by him. If
the amount of VRS is not deducted, then it will amount to double benefit
to the claimant as he shall get the entire loss of income as normally
computed and in addition, he will have the benefit of getting amount by
virtue of VRS availed by him. Learned counsel further submitted that the
Tribunal has passed well reasoned order, no interference is required in it
and requested to dismiss the appeal.
4. I have heard both learned counsel, perused the judgment and
order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangli, (for short
"the Tribunal").
6. It is claimant's case that due to accidental injuries, the claimant
has suffered injury to his brain and other parts of body. To prove the
disability, the claimant has examined PW2-Dr. Sanjiv M. Kulkarni. He has
stated that the claimant was admitted in his hospital on 22nd November
2011 and discharged on 25th January 2012. According to this witness,
there was brain contusions and fracture of skull bone. The patient was
treated in his hospital for above period and he has issued injury certificate
on 19th March 2012. It is at Exhibit-59. The discharge card is at Exhibit-
60. The disability certificate was issued on 4th March 2013. It is at Exhibit-
61. This witness has stated that the claimant has suffered 70% disability
3/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
of both limbs. In cross-examination, he has stated that the medical
impairment and disability are altogether different. He has admitted that he
has not shown functional problem in the disability certificate at Exhibit-61.
He has stated quadriparesis means weakness of both lower and upper
limb. There is no quadriparesis to the claimant. He has admitted that he
has no power to issue disability certificate.
7. To prove the disability, the claimant has produced disability
certificate issued by Medical Board of Vasant Dada Patil Government
Hospital, Sangli, dated 24th April 2014 but it appears that though this
certificate is taken on record showing 70% permanent physical disability
but this disability certificate is nor exhibited or referred in the judgment of
the Tribunal.
8. While dealing with the issue of disability of the claimant, the
Tribunal has observed that bifurcation of disability is not given by the
PW2-Doctor. Moreover, he has clearly admitted that he has no power to
issue disability certificate. In such circumstances, it can be inferred that
the patient sustained the injuries in the accident and there was permanent
disability, however, the percentage of disability in the absence of
bifurcation cannot be accepted. At the most, the patient is having some
disability due to the accident, has been observed. I am unable to
understand the observations of the Tribunal. PW2 who is a medical
expert has stated that there was brain contusion and fracture of skull bone
and the claimant was admitted in his hospital for more than one month.
4/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
Due to physical disability, the claimant was forced to take VRS. Due to
his physical inability, the claim petition was filed through next friend. He
was examined by appointing court commissioner. It is claimant's case that
he is bed-ridden and unable to walk properly but the Tribunal has not
considered these facts. Moreover, the disability certificate issued by the
Medical Board of Government Hospital, Sangli has not been considered
by the Tribunal. Though it is not exhibited as per the view of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the order dated 10th February 2022 passed in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 534 of 2020 (Bajaj Allianz versus Union of India),
the medical certificate issued by the Medical Board can be taken on
record without summoning the concerned witness to give formal proof of
the document, unless there is some reason for suspicion in the said
document. In the present case, PW2 has issued disability certificate
showing 70% disability of the claimant. The medical board has also
issued disability of same percentage. The Tribunal should have
considered this fact. Hence, I am considering permanent physical
disability of the claimant at 70%. Though the claimant has 70%
permanent physical disability, it has been proved that his functional
disability is 100%.
9. Now the question remains about loss of income. It is
contention of learned counsel for the claimant that due to permanent
physical disability, the claimant was forced to take VRS, hence, he is
entitled for loss of income. Whereas it is contention of learned counsel for
5/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
respondent-Corporation that the claimant has already received lump-sum
amount after taking VRS and giving the loss of income would amount to
double benefit to the claimant. In my view, the claimant took voluntary
retirement at the age of 48 years and his 12 years service was remaining.
Had he been continued in service, he would have got promotion and his
salary would have been enhanced but due to accidental injuries, he has
lost his promotional benefits and monetary benefits. Moreover, when any
person takes VRS, at that time, his future benefits are not calculated in
VRS benefit and he would get benefits what he is entitled at the age of
VRS. In the present case, the claimant was forced to take VRS at the age
of 48, so he is deprived of getting benefits of his further service. Hence,
the claimant is entitled for loss of income and future prospects.
10. The Tribunal has not applied multiplier. At the time of accident,
the claimant was 48 year old, hence, the proper multiplier is 13.
11. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation for pain and
suffering. Considering the injuries suffered to brain, I am considering
Rs.5,00,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not awarded
amount for loss of amenities in life, I am considering it at Rs.3,00,000/-.
The Tribunal has not awarded amount for loss of expectations of life, I am
considering it at Rs.2,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded amount of Rs.
6,50,000/- for future medical expenses. Considering the nature of injuries,
I am considering Rs.3,50,000/- more for future medical expenses. The
Tribunal has not awarded amount towards cost of nursing and attendant.
6/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
It appears from record that the claimant is bed-ridden and will require
attendant for his entire life, hence, I am considering Rs.4,00,000/- for
Nursing & Attendant. The Tribunal has not awarded future expenses for
physiotherapy, I am considering it Rs.4,00,000/-. The Tribunal has not
awarded amount for special diet, I am considering it at Rs.2,00,000/-. The
Tribunal has not awarded amount for cost of wheelchair, I am considering
it at Rs.75,000/-.
12. Considering the above calculations, the claimant is entitled for
following enhanced compensation:
Particulars Rs. Amount
Loss of Earning
(Rs.44,464/ (-) Rs.2200(tax) = Rs.42,264/- (+)
Rs.10,566/- (25% future prospectus) =
Rs.52,830/- x 12(months) x 13 (multiplier) Rs. 82,41,480.00
Pain and Suffering Rs. 5,00,000.00
Loss of Amenities in Life Rs. 3,00,000.00
Loss of Expectation of Life Rs. 2,00,000.00
Future Medical Expenses Rs. 3,50,000.00
Nursing and Attendant Rs. 4,00,000.00
Future Expenses towards Physiotherapists Rs. 4,00,000.00
Special Diet Rs. 2,00,000.00
Cost of Wheelchair Rs. 75,000.00
Total Enhanced Compensation Rs. 1,06,66,480.00
The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,06,66,480/-.
13. In view of above, I pass the following order :
7/8
::: Uploaded on - 14/08/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/08/2025 22:51:51 :::
Shubhada S Kadam 913-FA-703-2015.doc
ORDER
(1) The appeal is allowed.
(2) The claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of
Rs.1,06,66,480/- @ 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of filing claim petition till realisation of the amount.
(3) Respondent No.1-Corporation shall deposit the
enhanced amount along with accrued interest thereon
within eight weeks from the receipt of this order.
(4) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced
amount along with accrued interest thereon.
(5) The claimant shall pay deficit court fees on enhanced
amount, if any, as per Rule.
(6) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.
14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)
