Milind S/O Karuji Ilamkar vs The Controller Maharshtra State Road ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1000 Bom

Bombay High Court

Milind S/O Karuji Ilamkar vs The Controller Maharshtra State Road ... on 29 January, 2026

2026:BHC-NAG:1416


              fa.526.15-J.doc                                                                                 1/5



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR


                                            FIRST APPEAL NO.526 OF 2015


                    Milind s/o. Karuji Ilamkar,
                    Aged about - 27 years, Occupation - Labour,
                    R/o. - At Post : Khodseoni, Tah. : Arjuni,
                    District : Gondia.                          ---APPELLANT

                           ---VERSUS---
                    The Controller,
                    Maharashtra State Road Transport
                    Corporation, Having Office at
                    Railway Station Road, Nagpur.                                  ----RESPONDENT

              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Mr. K. P. Mirache, Advocate for Appellant.
              Mr. V. H. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent.
              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

              CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
              JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 16.01.2026.
              JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 29.01.2026


              JUDGMENT

1. This is an Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short, 'M.V. Act') for enhancement of compensation. The

Appellant filed the Claim Petition No.645/2008 against the Respondent

that, on 14.05.2008 while traveling on two-wheeler as a pillion rider from

village Futala towards Kohamara in Gondia District, the State Transport Bus

gave dash to the two-wheeler. In the accident, the Appellant suffered

grievous injuries for which, he was hospitalized. The injuries resulted in

the permanent disability. The Claim Petition was contested by the

Respondent. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the learned

Trial Court directed the compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at the

rate of Rs.7.5% from 23.01.2013 till payment was made.

2. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that,

Medico Legal Certificate (MLC) available on record shows the disability

suffered by the Appellant. The Appellant was a labourer and suffered 100%

functional disability due to an accident. His notional income of Rs.3,000/-

per month be taken with the consequential benefits. The Appeal be

allowed.

3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent that,

there was no evidence on record to show that, the Appellant suffered any

disability due to the motor vehicular accident. The Disability Certificate

was brought on record in the year 2012 i.e. after four years from filing the

Claim Petition. The learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned

Judgment and Award.

4. The law in respect of personal injury claim is well settled right

from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Raj

Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr. [(2011) 1 SCC 343. In the case at hand,

undisputedly, the Appellant did not place on record the medical treatment

papers. In his evidence affidavit it is stated that, Medical Officer of the

Government Hospital, Nagpur did not issue the Discharge Card and

therefore, he was unable to file Discharge Card on record. The record

shows that, he placed on record the Disability Certificate dated 18.07.2012

(Exhibit-29), showing the disability of 45%. Undisputedly, no evidence was

led by Medical Officer or the Doctor, who treated the Appellant for the

injury and who issued the said certificate. There is absolutely no evidence

on record in respect of treatment taken by the Appellant showing the

disability suffered by him due to an accident. There is no evidence on

record to show that, the said 45% disability mentioned in the said

Certificate was the result of the accident in question. The learned Tribunal

in para Nos. 8 and 9 of the impugned Judgment observed thus :

"[8] Petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Now, let us see what is the "just and reasonable" amount of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. As per evidence of petitioner, he was of 27 years age and doing labour work and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. Due to accidental injuries, he is unable to do work and suffered for life. Petitioner though filed certificate issued by District General Hospital, Gondia, but it does not show as to which part of petitioner's body has been affected, creating such kind of disablement. The doctor, who is examined this petitioner and treated him, has not been examined in this case. Petitioner deposed that he was in Government Medical College, Nagpur for 8 days and was treated there, however, there is no injury certificate nor any document about his treatment in Nagpur Medical College. On the contrary, the petitioner contended in petition that he had taken treatment in Orange City Hospital. When this has been asked to him in evidence, he denied that fact. Hence, her contention in petition and evidence are contradictory. Secondly, there are no documents about the treatment taken and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner for that.

[9] Considering all these aspects on record, according to me, the petitioner might have sustained simple injuries in accident. Those are not such so as to affect him disable. Hence, amount as claimed cannot be granted. According to me, he must have suffered pain and suffering only on account of such injuries and expenses of treatment, and on all counts, I grant him Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) in lump sum and that is the "just & reasonable" amount of compensation for the petitioner."

5. The record shows that, the learned Tribunal by order dated

10.02.2012 has disposed of the Application under Section 140 of the

M.V. Act by observing that, there was no Disability Certificate and the

matter be decided on merit. In view of the above discussion, I do not see

any ground to interfere in the impugned Judgment and Order except the

date from which the interest is granted. Hence, the following Order :

ORDER

i] The Appeal is partly allowed.

ii] The interest shall be payable from the date of the Claim

Petition till the payment of compensation determined by

the learned Tribunal is made.

iii] The impugned Award stands modified to the above extent

only.

iv] Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned

Reference Court.

                                         v]    The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.




                                                                               (NEERAJ P. DHOTE J.)




                 RGurnule




Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/01/2026 12:30:55