Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROALLER MSRTC AMBEJOGAI AND ANRversusDAGADU SAYYED SHAIKH

Disposal
DISMISSED

Holding

The appeal is dismissed, upholding the assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Summary

The respondent, a driver employed by the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, suffered multiple fractures in a road accident and received Rs.25,000 under the Motor Vehicles Act on a no-fault basis. He also filed a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act for loss of earning capacity, which was assessed at 100% with deductions for the Motor Vehicles Act award and medical expenses of Rs.74,211. The appellants argued that the loss of earning capacity should not be fixed at 100% despite the respondent being forced to quit his job due to disability, but they presented no evidence. The court found no substantial question of law and upheld the Compensation Commissioner's assessment of 100% loss of earning capacity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the deposited amount was ordered to be paid to the respondent with interest, and the related civil application was disposed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the loss of earning capacity of the employee can be fixed at 100% when he is compelled to quit employment due to injuries sustained in a road accident.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Workmen's Compensation
  • Motor Vehicles Act
  • loss of earning capacity
  • accident compensation
  • employer liability
  • appeal dismissed

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37913
                                                                           919-FA-668-11.odt




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2011
                                           WITH
                            CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2749 OF 2011

          The Divisional Controller,
          Maharashtra State Road Transport
          Corporation, Ambejogai and Another                   ..APPELLANTS
                VERSUS
          Dagadu Sayyed Shaikh                                 ..RESPONDENT

                                                ....
          Mr. F.K. Patel, Advocate h/f Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, Adovate for respondent
                                                ....

                                                     CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATE : 20th AUGUST, 2026

          PER COURT :

          1.         The respondent, while in the employment as driver with the

          Appellants, met with a road accident and suffered injuries.     He claimed

          compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and received Rs.25,000/- towards

          claim on no fault basis.   Apart from that he has also preferred a claim

          application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which came to be

          registered as W.C.A. NO. 6 of 2010. The claim is computed on the basis of

          loss of earning capacity at 100%. The amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded under

          the Motor Vehicles Act was deducted from the said award. An amount of

          Rs.74,211/- paid by the appellants to the respondent towards medical

          expenses was also deducted.



                                           1 / 2
                                                                      919-FA-668-11.odt



2.             The only contention of learned counsel for the Appellants is that

the loss of earning capacity should not have been fixed at 100% for the reason

that the learned Compensation Commissioner does not dispute that after

having suffered injuries, the respondent was forced to leave employment.

The respondent sustained fracture injuries to left shaft femur and fracture

injuries to left tibia fibula and fracture to right leg and other injuries on his

person, as a consequence of which he could not drive bus as earlier. It is also

not in dispute that the respondent was required to quit employment on

account of disability suffered due to injuries in the road accident. The

respondent–employee has examined the doctor in support of his case of 100%

loss of earning capacity. As against this, the Appellants have not led any

evidence.


3.             In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for

consideration in the appeal. As such, First Appeal is dismissed with no order

as to costs.


4.             The amount deposited by the Appellants with the Compensation

Commissioner be disbursed to the Respondent – employee alongwith the

accrued interest, if any.


5.             Civil application stands disposed of accordingly.




                                                       ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )
SSD


                                       2 / 2


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.