Bombay High Court
Mahrashtra State Road Transport ... vs Sudhakar Nathu Bohale on 11 November, 2025
Author: S. M. Modak
Bench: S. M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:47958
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1504 OF 2025
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation
Thr. Its Divisional
Controller at Division Office
At Palghar Taluka and Dist. Palghar
Pin - 401 404. ...Appellant
Vs.
Sudhakar Nathu Bohale
Age : 33 years, Occ.: Nil,
R/at. House No. 1207, ST
Domnic Road Palmar
Wadi Sandor Vasai West
Tal. - Vasai, Vasai
Virar City Dist. Palghar. ...Respondent
*****
Adv. Manjeet Lotankar a/w Adv. Advocate for the
Sumedh S. Gaikwad, Adv. Appellants-MSRTC
Dhananjayrao Rananaware
Ms. Rina Kundu Advocate for the
Respondent
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
RESERVED ON : 16th OCTOBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 11th NOVEMBER 2025
Digitally signed
SEEMA by SEEMA
KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
Date:
YELKAR 2025.11.11
18:34:57 +0530
Seema 1/8
::: Uploaded on - 11/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 11/11/2025 20:49:59 :::
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
JUDGMENT :
-
1. This is an appeal against the award dated 28.03.2024 passed by
learned Member, MACT, Vasai in MACP No. 17 of 2022.
2. There were two parties. One Claimant, who is injured auto
rickshaw driver and second MSRTC, who is owner of the offending ST
bus. On the relevant date, ST bus was driven by one Shailesh Shivaji
Suryawanshi.
3. There is F.I.R. registered against the said ST driver with
Manikpur Police Station, Vasai under Section 279, 337, 338 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
4. The Claimant sustained injuries. Firstly, he was taken to the
hospital at Vasai-Virar and then shifted to BDBA Hospital, Kandivali.
The accident took place on 08.11.2021 in the morning hours at 6.15
a.m.. The Claimant has got permanent partial disability to the extent of
36%. He has entered into witness box and examined Dr. Samir
Lokhare. Whereas ST driver has also entered into witness box. On
assessing the evidence, the Tribunal held ST driver rash and negligent
and compensation to the extent of Rs. 8,67,000/- alongwith interest @
6% p.a. was awarded.
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
5. This appeal by MSRTC mainly on the ground of negligence and
quantum.
Negligence
6. The Claimant and ST driver both were eye-witnesses. The
evidence which has come on record is as follows:-
(i) The claimant plies auto-rickshaw on hire basis. On the
date of the accident on 08.11.2021 at 5.30 a.m., he took
his auto rickshaw and he reached near Anand Bhavani
Temple. At that time, ST Shivshahi bus driver has come
from the opposite direction. So far as location of the
accident and the manner in which both the vehicles came
at the spot is undisputed. They dashed each other from the
opposite direction is also undisputed. The only dispute is
who was rash and negligent. According to the ST driver
auto rickshaw came from the opposite direction in a great
speed. ST driver gave a signal with the help of the light of
the bus. The auto rickshaw dashed on the right side of the
ST bus and turned turtle. The auto rickshaw driver was
injured. He was paid for certain expenses. The Claimant
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
has blamed the ST driver. The Tribunal has also held ST
driver guilty, rash and negligent. These findings are there
in para no. 9.
7. According to learned Advocate for the Appellant, in fact the auto
rickshaw driver was in great speed and he could not judge the signal
and dashed the ST. According to him, just because the F.I.R. is
registered against the ST driver, it does not mean that ST driver was
only negligent. The Tribunal has not assessed the evidence properly.
8. Whereas according to Ms. Kundu, the finding is on the basis of
the documentary evidence and need not be interfered with. The
surrounding circumstance needs to be considered. The following
documentary evidence was given:-
a) Copy of the F.I.R.
b) Copy of the spot panchnama
c) Copy of MLC report
9. The F.I.R. is registered on the complaint of auto rickshaw driver.
Whereas the spot panchnama dated 08.11.2021 records the boundaries
at the spot and damage caused to both the vehicles. It denotes
following facts :-
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
a) The damage amount is not mentioned therein. The
bumper of the headlight of the right side of the BEST
bus is damaged.
b) The chassis, frame, front body and wiring of the auto
rickshaw was damaged to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-.
10. The bus had come from the Bhusawal and was proceeding
towards Vasai. The distance is 445 k.m.. The ST driver admits there is
turn while coming from East towards West. The ST driver was required
to face departmental inquiry and even he was sent to the training. The
ST driver has driven ST for long duration because he came from
Bhusawal.
11. Whereas Claimant took out his auto rickshaw at 5.30 a.m.. and
accident took place at about 6.15 a.m.. Admittedly, there is greater
damage caused to the auto rickshaw. Furthermore, amongst two, it is
Claimant who has sustained injury. If these two factors are considered,
there is a reason to believe that this ST driver only who was rash and
negligent. I find no fault in the findings arrived at by the tribunal.
12. Dr. Samir Lokhare has assessed his permanent partial disability as
36%. There is difference between physical disability and functional
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
disability. The Court has to consider what will be the effect of disability
on his functional disability. In this case it is the ability of the Claimant
to ply the rickshaw. One of the injuries are on lower limb (fracture of
right Tibia fibula), there are minor injuries on head and occipital
region. The claimant was finding it difficult to squat and sit by crossing
the leg. The percentage of functional disability considered by the
Tribunal is 25% is not on higher side. I agree with the same.
Quantum of compensation
13. In injury claim, compensation can be awarded towards pecuniary
damages and non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages can be
expenses incurred on medical bills, hospitalization, attendant charges
and so on. Non-pecuniary damages may include pain and suffering
and so on.
14. It is important to consider monthly income. The claimant is auto
rickshaw driver. His claim was of Rs. 25,000/- per month. There is no
documentary evidence. Hardly, he can get documentary evidence
because the auto rickshaw driver is paid by the customers as and when
auto rickshaw is hired. The Tribunal considered his monthly income as
Rs. 10,000/-. It was by applying test of the notional income. There is
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
no dispute about driving auto rickshaw by the Claimant. I considered
Rs. 10,000/- per month as reasonable income.
15. Further calculation done by the Tribunal is as follows:-
Future Prospect Rs. 4,000/- ---
40% (Considered his age
as 30 years
Total income Rs. 14,000/- X 12 Rs. 6,72,000/-
months X 16 as
multiplier X 25%
(functional disability)
Physical and mental -- Rs. 75,000/-
pain, loss of amenities
and loss of expectation of
life
Medical expenses (bill not produced) Rs. 10,000/-
Special diet travelling -- Rs. 1,10,000/-
expenses and
physiotherapy
Total Rs. 8,67,000/-
(Rupees Eight
Lakhs Sixty Seven
Thousand only)
16. Patient was admitted in the hospital from 08/11/2021 to
23/11/2021. The total compensation is Rs. Rs. 8,67,000/- (Rupees
Eight Lakhs Sixty Seven Thousand only)
17. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of
905. FA 1504 of 2025.doc
instituting of petition till realization of the entire amount.
18. I do not find any reason to disagree with these findings. I find no
merit in the appeal. Hence, I pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The MSRTC is directed to deposit remaining amount, if
any, alongwith interest within two months from the date
of uploading the order before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Vasai.
(iii) The statutory deposit alongwith interest be transferred to
the MACT, Vasai.
(iv) The Claimant is at liberty to withdraw the amount before
the Tribunal. If there is an issue about outstanding
amount, let the MSRTC to file an affidavit before the
tribunal thereby giving the details of payment made by
them. The tribunal to decide that issue during execution.
(v) Accordingly, the First Appeal is disposed of.
(vi) Pending interim application, if any, also stands disposed
of.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
