[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ratankumar S/O Tarachand Madan vs Divsnl Controller, M.S.R.T.C. And 2 Ors on 15 December, 2025
2025:BHC-NAG:14302
fa 21-2011.doc 1/23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.21/2011
Ratankumar s/o Tarachand Madan,
aged 47 yrs, Occu: Business,
R/o Madan Wada, Plot No.662,
Sudam road, Itwari, Nagpur
... APPELLANTS
...VERSUS...
1. Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Tarakpur
Depot, Ahemednagar, through M.S.R.T.C.
Station Road, Nagpur.
2. Mr. Omprakash Ramjidas Madan,
aged Major, R/o Adhyar, Tah. Pauni,
Dist. Bhandara
3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Gondia Br.
Through United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Lega Cell, Kingsway, Nagpur.
...RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Asghar Hussain, Advocate for appellant
Shri V. Kedar, Advocate for respondent No.1
Shri B. Lahiri, Advocate h/f Shri D.B. Chatterjee, Advocate for respondent No.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT: 20.11.2025
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 15.12.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. In the present appeal, the challenge is to the judgment
and order passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur, in
Claim Petition No.701/2000 decided on 08.04.2010.
3. The undisputed fact of the present appeal that are
necessary to be looked into, which are as under:
The applicant is a businessman and a wholesale cloth dealer
having his shop in the wholesale cloth market under the name and
style of 'Prem Silk Stores'. He has also produced a Marathi film
titled 'Gharabaher'. Further, it is the submission of the appellant
that he had started a new venture named 'N.R. Editing' in Shankar
Nagar, Nagpur, and procured equipment worth Rs. 5.50 lakhs by
taking a loan from the market.
4. On 19.03.1999, at around 5 a.m., while he was
travelling from Nagpur to Pune as an occupant of a trax bearing No.
MH 35/C-9388, near Masne Phata on the Nagpur-Pune Road, an
ST bus bearing No. MH 12/FA-1794 came from the opposite
direction at high speed and dashed to the jeep. In the said accident,
the appellant sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to the
hospital on 19.03.1999. He remained hospitalized for a period of
one month, until 19.04.1999.
5. According to the appellant, due to this accident, he
incurred expenses of Rs. 1,03,570/- for hospitalization, Rs.
12,800/- on medicines, Rs. 2,830/- on blood testing, ambulance
charges, and other expenses Rs.1,420/-. At the time of the accident,
the appellant was a 35 year old businessman earning Rs. 25,000/-
per month. Therefore, considering the loss he suffered due to the
accident, he preferred a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal
and claimed compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs from the respondent.
6. In the present appeal, it is seen from the record that
the appellant, in order to substantiate his submissions, examined
himself before the Claims Tribunal and narrated the entire factual
position as well as the loss caused to him due to the accident. To
corroborate his financial loss, he relied upon the evidence of
Ramsharan Tarachand Madan, who was the Auditor of the firm
'Prem Silk Stores' and was also looking after all the accounts of the
appellant's establishment. He also examined Shri Mahesh Bansilal
Puniyani, who had provided a vehicle during the period when the
appellant was hospitalised at Pune.
7. Dr. Parag Sancheti was examined to prove that the
appellant had sustained injuries as reflected in the discharge card
and the certificate issued by him on 07.02.2007, stating that due to
the accident, the metallic implants inserted in the appellant's body
are not removable. Lastly, Dr. Maroti Kothede, a Member of the
Medical Board at Mayo Hospital, Nagpur, was examined to prove
the disability certificate.
8. It is an admitted fact on record that no evidence was
led on behalf of the respondents before the Claims Tribunal. The
respondents only cross-examined the witnesses and, on that basis,
defended the claim petition before the Tribunal.
9. In light of the above factual position, which was
brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal, the learned Tribunal,
by its judgment, awarded compensation of Rs. 6,85,700/- under the
following heads:
1. Medical treatment and medicine Rs. 1,25,000/-
2. Special diet Rs. 10,000/-
3. Attendance charges Rs. 10,000/-
4. Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000/-
5. Loss of amenities in life Rs. 10,000/-
6. Loss caused in business Rs. 5,00,000/-
7. Expenses bear for traveling Rs. 10,700/-
Total Rs. 6,85,700/-
10. The appellant/claimant, being dissatisfied with the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal,
preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the
compensation. According to him, he is entitled to compensation of
Rs. 30 lakhs by considering his income and the evidence he has
produced on record. However, the learned Tribunal failed to
consider the evidence in the right perspective and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
11. In the present matter, although specific evidence regarding
his yearly income was not brought on record, it is established by the
appellant that his sales figure in the financial year 1998-1999 was
Rs.78,69,631/- and therefore, his income is required to
be considered in the matter. As such, appellant stated that his
monthly income was Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident.
12. The appellant, in support of his submission, has relied
upon following Case laws:
1. Rajkumar V. Ajaykumar, 2011 ACJ Pg. 1,
2. Sandeep Khanduja V. Atul Dande, 2017 ACJ, Pg.979,
3. Kajal V.Jagdish 2020 SCC, 413.
4. Mohd. Sabeer V. U.P.S.R.T.C, 2023 ACJ
5. Jagdish V. Mohan 2018 SCC, PG.571,
6. Karthik V. B.Sarath Babu, 2021 ACJ,
7. Lakshmana Gowda V. Oriental, AIR 2023 S.C.
8. M.Seetharama V. Future Generali, 2025 ACJ.
9. Madhavi V. Jarloksingh, 2025 ACJ pg 938 Bom.
10. Manthani V. Chandragiri, 2025 ACJ.Pg. 1190,
11. Prakashchand V. Rambhau, 2025 ACJ, Pg 395,
12. Hanumantharaju V. M.Akram 2025 ACJ
13. Nur Ahmed V. Abdul Munaf 2025 ACJ
14. Deepak Singh V. Mukesh 2025 ACJ pg. 1515,
13. In the present appeal, respondent No. 1 has contested
the matter on merits. According to respondent No. 1, in a case of
permanent disability, it is the burden of the claimant to establish on
record how the future loss of income has been caused due to the
permanent disability. For that purpose, it was necessary for the
claimant to adduce corroborative evidence on record. It was also
necessary for the claimant to place on record substantial documents
to prove the claim under the various heads permissible as per the
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
14. However, the appellant failed to establish his
permanent disability and the loss of income due to such disability
before the Claims Tribunal. According to respondent No. 1,
considering the nature of disability, which did not cause any future
loss of income to the appellant, the amount determined by the
learned Claims Tribunal is justified, and no enhancement is
warranted in the matter.
15. The other respondents have adopted the submissions
made by respondent No. 1 in the matter. According to them,
respondent No. 1 has sufficiently covered their contentions, and
therefore, they do not wish to add any further submissions. In light
of the above factual and legal position pointed out by the parties,
and the case laws relied upon, I have gone through the record and
the case papers placed before me.
16. At the outset, in my view the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajkumar (supra) certain observations
particularly paragraph Nos.5, 9 and 10 are relevant to reproduce in
the matter:
"5. The heads under which compensation is awarded
in personal injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured
would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent
disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages)
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a
consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of
marriage).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be
awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only
in serious cases of injury, where there is specific
medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the
claimant, that compensation will be granted under any
of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of
future earnings on account of permanent disability,
future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss
of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.
Assessment of pecuniary damages under Item (i) and
under Item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they
involve reimbursement of actual and are easily
ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head
of future medical expenses Item (iii) depends upon
specific medical evidence regarding need for further
treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-
pecuniary damages-Items (iv), (v) and (vi) involves
determination of lump sum amounts with reference to
circumstances such as age, nature of
injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant
and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant.
Decisions of this Court and the High Courts contain
necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if
necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the
assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of
permanent disability-Item (ii)(b). We are concerned
with that assessment in this case.
Assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent
disability
9. Therefore, the Tribunal has to first decide whether
there is any permanent disability and if so, the extent of
such permanent disability. This means that Tribunal
should consider and decide with reference to the
evidence: (i) whether the disablement is permanent or
temporary; (ii) if the disablement is permanent,
whether it is permanent total disablement or permanent
partial disablement; (iii) if the disablement percentage
is expressed with reference to any specific limb, then
the effect of such disablement of the limb on the
functioning of the entire body, that is the permanent
disability suffered by the person. If the Tribunal
concludes that there is no permanent disability then
there is no question of proceeding further and
determining the loss of future earning capacity. But if
the Tribunal concludes that there is permanent
disability then it will proceed to ascertain its extent.
After the Tribunal ascertains the actual extent of
permanent disability of the claimant based on the
medical evidence, it has to determine whether such
permanent disability has affected or will affect his
earning capacity.
10. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent
disability on the actual earning capacity involves three
steps. The Tribunal has to first ascertain what activities
the claimant could carry on in spite of the permanent
disability and what he could not do as a result of the
permanent ability [sic disability] (this is also relevant
for awarding compensation under the head loss of
amenities of life). The second step is to ascertain his
avocation, profession and nature of work before the
accident, as also his age. The third step is to find out
whether (i) the claimant is totally disabled from earning
any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in spite of the
permanent disability, the claimant could still effectively
carry on the activities and functions, which he was
earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or
restricted from discharging his previous activities and
functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale
of activities and functions so that he continues to earn
or can continue to earn his livelihood. For example, if
the left hand of a claimant is amputated, the permanent
physical or functional disablement may be assessed
around 60 per cent. If the claimant was a driver or a
carpenter, the actual loss of earning capacity may
virtually be hundred per cent, if he is neither able to
drive or do carpentry. On the other hand, if the
claimant was a clerk in government service, the loss of
his left hand may not result in loss of employment and
he may still be continued as a clerk as he could perform
his clerical functions; and in that event the loss of
earning capacity will not be 100 per cent as in the case
of a driver or carpenter, nor 60 per cent which is the
actual physical disability, but far less. In fact, there may
not be any need to award any compensation under the
head of 'loss of future earnings', if claimant continues in
government service, though he may be awarded
compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a
consequence of losing his hand. Sometimes the injured-
claimant may be continued in service, but may not be
found suitable for discharging the duties attached to the
post or job which he was earlier holding, on account of
his disability and may, therefore, be shifted to some
other suitable but lesser post with lesser emoluments, in
which case there should be a limited award under the
head of loss of future earning capacity, taking note of
the reduced earning capacity. It may be noted that
when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of
future earning capacity as 100 per cent (or even
anything more than 50 per cent), the need to award
compensation separately under the head of loss of
amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear
and as a result, only a token or nominal amount may
have to be awarded under the head of loss of amenities
or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be
a duplication in the award of compensation. Be that as
it may."
17. In light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India, which till date hold the field and to ascertain the effect of
permanent disability, the Court is required to first determine, what
activities the claimant can still carry out despite the permanent
disability and what activities he can no longer perform as a result of
such disability. Further, it is necessary to ascertain his avocation,
profession, and nature of work prior to the accident, as well as his
age. Thereafter, it has to be examined whether the claimant has
been totally disabled from earning any livelihood, or whether,
despite the permanent disability, he can still effectively carry on the
activities and functions he was performing earlier, and whether he
has been prevented or restricted from discharging his previous
activities and functions. On this basis, the extent of his disability has
to be assessed.
18. Similarly, while considering the disability, it is
necessary to examine whether the disability certificate refers to the
injury to a particular part of the body or to the whole body. If the
disability pertains only to a specific limb, can it be treated as a
functional disability of the entire body, or can it be assumed to
result in a corresponding loss of earning capacity.
19. In light of this legal position, I have gone through the
evidence placed on record by the appellant. Admittedly, the
appellant was engaged in the cloth business and had produced a
Marathi film 'Gharabaher'. According to him, he had also started
another business under the name and style of 'N.R. Editing' at
Shankar Nagar, Nagpur. In support of the income which he was
earning prior to the accident, he produced his income tax returns
on record to show that he was regularly paying income tax based
on his earnings.
20. The appellant, in support of his income, examined the
Auditor, namely Ramsharan Madan. From the evidence of this
witness, it was brought on record by the respondent that he is the
real brother of the appellant and he failed to establish that he was
professionally working as a Chartered Accountant for the
appellant's firm. It was further brought on record during his cross-
examination that, no regular audit accounts maintained by him, the
books of account, copy of the passbook, and other relevant
documents such as the audit report were not placed on record. It
also emerged that only the income tax return till the financial year
1999-2000 were produced. Hence, in light of this evidence, it is
clear that the appellant failed to establish on record, what financial
loss caused to him, after the accident and more particularly due to
permanent disability caused to him.
21. In the same manner, although the appellant stated that
he had started a new business under the name and style of 'N.R.
Editing' at Shankar Nagar, Nagpur, and purchased equipment
worth Rs. 5.50 lakhs by taking a loan from the market, which was
required to be closed due to the accident, it was therefore necessary
for him to place on record at least the details of the equipment
purchased and the source from which the loan was obtained.
However no evidence in this regard has been placed on record in
the matter. The evidence of accountant falls short to support the
submission of appellant. In support of submission, it was necessary
for appellant to produce documentary evidence on record. But,
except oral statement, no documentary evidence produced on
record to substantiate his submission that due to permanent
disability he caused loss in his future income.
22. With respect to transport charges, the appellant relied
upon PW-3, Mahesh Puniyani. This witness was not seriously cross-
examined by the respondent, and therefore it stands established
that the appellant paid Rs. 10,698/- towards travelling charges.
Thus, this fact has been duly proved on record by the appellant.
23. As per the judgment in Rajkumar (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India has observed, in respect of disability
certificates, the Court should act with caution if it proposes to
accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat the injured
but have issued a disability certificate. At the same time, it has been
clarified that where disability certificates has been issued by duly
constituted Medical Boards, that may be accepted, subject to
evidence regarding the genuineness of such certificates. Mere
production of a disability certificate or discharge certificate will not
by itself prove the extent of disability unless the doctor who treated
the claimant, or who medically examined and assessed the extent of
disability, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the
certificate. Without such examination, the certificate cannot be
accepted as conclusive proof.
24. In light of this proposition of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, I have examined the evidence of
Dr. Parag Sancheti. In his evidence, he stated that he issued the
certificate dated 07.02.2007 (Exhibit 81), which shows that the
appellant was treated by him and had metallic implants in his body.
This witness specifically stated that the hip implants could not be
removed as it might cause damage to the nerve supplying blood.
25. Further, from his evidence, it is clear that there were
implants in the appellant's knee, which could be removed after a
considerable period; and after removal, there would be no defect in
the knee. The witness also stated in cross-examination that,
considering the treatment and injuries referred in the certificate,
the appellant was referred to the Civil Surgeon. From this evidence,
it is clear that the appellant was under the treatment of Dr. Parag
Sancheti and had metallic implants in his body, particularly in the
knee and hip.
26. The appellant then examined Dr. Maroti Raghoji
Koihede, who was the Professor and Head of the Department at the
Medical College and a Member of the Medical Board. In his
evidence, this witness stated that, upon clinical examination, he
found a crush injury to the appellant's right leg and assessed 50%
disability, which, according to him, is permanent in nature. He has
proved the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board.
Accordingly, the handicap certificate issued by the Medical Board
(Exhibits 101 and 102) shows the disability of the left leg to be
55%.
27. In light of the above factual position, it is clear that the
injury sustained to the left leg of the appellant is 50 to 55%. The
injury does not affect his whole body. Moreover, it is not the case
that this injury resulted in a loss of earning capacity. Therefore,
considering the evidence available on record, although the
permanent disability as per the medical evidence is stated to be 50
to 55%, in view of the two medical certificates, I am of the opinion
that the loss of earning capacity can be assessed at the most at 15%
based on the evidence on record.
28. This percentage of disability fortified from the evidence
brought on record. The appellant failed to establish the future loss
caused to him in his business. He has only filed income tax returns
up to the year 1998-1999, i.e., the year in which the accident
occurred. It is not the case of the appellant that the business was
closed due to the accident, therefore, when his evidence was
recorded before the Tribunal in 2007, he could have produced the
income tax returns of his business or shop till year 2007, which
would the best available documents to demonstrate the loss if
certainly caused to him. However, appellant failed to produce
without any sufficient reasons.
29. In respect of other business, particularly the production
of Marathi cinema, no corroborating evidence was brought on
record by the appellant. It is also pertinent to note that the
appellant, both in his evidence and in the pleadings of the plaint
and appeal, stated that he was involved in the production of the
Marathi film Gharabaher and, for that purpose, he was travelling to
Pune to attend the shooting of the film. He submitted that he
sustained a loss of Rs. 2 lakhs per day due to the accident, as there
was a delay in the completion of the film.
30. However, except this statement, nothing was placed on
record either before the Claims Tribunal or before this Court. If the
appellant was involved in the production of the Marathi film, it was
necessary for him to bring on record details of how he suffered a
loss due to the delay in completion of the film, what was his role in
the production, and how his absence caused the delay. However,
except this bare statement, nothing has been produced on record to
substantiate the loss claimed due to the delay. The appellant has
only placed on record a certificate from Suyog Chitra stating that he
had produced the said film under the banner of Suyog Chitra.
31. From the above discussion, it is difficult to ascertain his
monthly income, as there is no specific data available on record to
show his actual income before the date of the accident. The only
evidence available on record is the audit report till the date of
accident, no audit report from year 2000-2001 are placed on
record. Considering the evidence placed on record by the appellant,
the net profit can be seen for the year 1997-1998 was Rs.
1,26,724/-, and for the year 1998-1999 it was Rs. 72,330/-.
Therefore, it can be said that the appellant had an average yearly
income of Rs. 1,20,000/- from the various businesses he was
running before the accident. Hence, by accepting his annual income
at the rate of Rs. 1,20,000/-, the calculation for enhancement of
compensation is required to be carried out in the matter.
32. It is submitted that, as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mohammed Sabeer
(supra) even in cases of permanent injury, the claimant is entitled
to claim future prospects. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
just compensation is to be awarded in a manner that places the
claimant in the same position as he was before the accident
occurred. Therefore, even if the income of the appellant may have
increased after the accident, this alone is not sufficient to prevent
the appellant from claiming compensation for future prospects, as
the rise in income may be attributed to multiple other factors also.
Hence, relying upon the judgment in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a 40%
addition for future prospects should be made in cases of permanent
disability.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Jagdish (supra) further clarified that the benefit of future prospects
should not be confined only to those who have permanent jobs but
would also extend to self-employed individuals. Hence, according to
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in cases where the victim is below 40
years of age, 40% of the amount towards future prospects should be
added in cases of permanent disability.
34. In light of the factual position and law laid by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in my opinion, appellant is entitled
for the compensation as under:
Yearly income of Rs.1,20,000/-
Future prospect 40% Rs.48,100/-
Total (Rs.1,20,000 +48,100) Rs.1,68,000/-
15% disability Rs.25,200/-
multiplier 16 Rs.4,03,200/-
Hospitalization and medical bills Rs.2,00,000/-
Attendance charges Rs.60,000/-
Special diet Rs.20,000/-
Transportation charges Rs.20,000/-
Loss of earning during period of Rs.1,00,000/-
treatment
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
Future Medical Expenses Rs.50,000/-
Total= Rs.9,03,200/-
35. In view of above, I proceed to pass the following
orders:
ORDER
i) The First Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) The judgment and order passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Nagpur dated 08.04.2010, in Claim Petition No.701/2000
is modified to the extent that the appellant is entitled for the
compensation of Rs.9,03,200/- with 7.5% per annum from the date
of application till realisation of the amount.
iii) Respondent No.1 MSRTC is hereby directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount to the Registry of this Court within
a period of four months.
iv) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the same after deposit
of the amount subject to the satisfaction of the Registrar (Judicial).
v) Needless to mention that amount accrued by Tribunal and
withdrawn by claimant shall be deducted from enhance
compensation.
36. The First Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No
order as to the costs.
(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)
R.S. Sahare
Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 16/12/2025 19:03:49
