Bombay High Court
CHARLES SIDHARAM LONDHEversusTHE SECRETARY, M.S.R.T.C. AND ANR.
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The appeal is partially allowed; the compensation for permanent disability is enhanced from Rs 25,000 to Rs 50,000.
Summary
The appellant, Charles Sidharam Londhe, was injured in a road accident on 21 March 2004 when a State Transport bus driver abruptly accelerated and collided with his motorcycle, resulting in a 38% permanent disability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs 1,03,500, including Rs 25,000 for permanent disability. Londhe appealed, contending that the disability compensation was inadequate. The High Court examined the evidence, noted the negligence of the bus driver (charged under IPC §§279, 378, 338 and MVA §184), and considered whether the awarded amount was just. The Court partially allowed the appeal, enhancing the permanent disability compensation to Rs 50,000 while leaving the rest of the award unchanged, and ordered the respondents to deposit the additional amount with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for permanent disability is fair and justified
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 279, 338, 378
- Motor Vehicles Act — s. 184
Subjects
- motor accident
- compensation
- permanent disability
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- high court appeal
- negligence
- enhancement of award
Judgment
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2006
Shri Charles Sidharam Londhe …...Appellant
Age : 52 years, Occ. Service,
R/o. Rajendra Nagar, 71/1 Bavade Vahasat,
E Ward, Kolhapur.
Versus
1. The Secretary, M.S.R.T.C.
Through Depot. Manager,
Central S.T. Stand, Kolhapur.
2. Internal Insurance Fund, …...Respondents
Wahatuk Bhavan, Mumbai.
----
None for Appellant
Mr. Ketan Patil a/w. Ms. Pinky Bhansali for Respondents-MSRTC.
-------
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 1st October 2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. None for the Appellant.
2. Mr. Ketan Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondents-MSRTC, insisted
on dismissal of this Appeal for non-prosecution.
3. This Appeal is of the year 2006, admitted on 31 st July 2006. The
osk 1 of 7
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
Appeal was listed on the “Daily Cause list” of 28 th August, 2026, none was
present for the Appellant. However, the Appeal could not be taken up on the
said date due to paucity of time and was adjourned to today.
4. This Appeal is an Appeal for enhancement at the instance of the
Appellant-Claimant. The function of the Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal/Court is to award “just” compensation that is reasonable based on
the evidence produced on record. Accordingly, the request for dismissal of
this Appeal, as made by Mr. Ketan Patil, is declined and the Appeal is taken
up for hearing.
5. With the assistance of Mr. Ketan Patil, learned Advocate for the
Respondents-MSRTC, the records were perused.
6. By this Appeal, the Appellant assails the Judgment and Award dated
19.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kholapur
(“Tribunal”), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 658 of 2004, on the
ground that the compensation awarded is inadequate (“impugned Award”).
7. The material facts as revealed from the claim petition relevant to the
present Appeal are that on 21.03.2004, Appellant was proceeding towards
Hupari from Kolhapur on his motorcycle bearing No. MH-09-AJ-7536. When
he reached near the Temblai Temple, a State Transport (“ST”) bus was
proceeding ahead of him, he honked the horn of his motorcycle to indicate
osk 2 of 7
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
his intention to overtake the bus. The driver of the ST bus accordingly
allowed him to overtake. While the Appellant was overtaking the ST bus with
due care and caution, the driver of the ST bus suddenly and abruptly drove
the bus at high speed and dashed into the motorcycle from the rear, as a
result of which the Appellant fell and sustained grievous injuries, including a
fracture. C.R. No. 53 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the S.T. bus.
Appellant suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 38%.
8. On 26.10.2004, the Appellant filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No.
658 of 2004 before the Tribunal. Although the Respondents filed a Written
Statement raising various defences, they did not lead any evidence.
9. The Tribunal, vide the impugned Award, granted compensation to the
Appellant under the following heads:-
Particulars Amount awarded by
the Tribunal
Permanent Disability (38%) Rs. 25,000.00
Loss of salary for the period of 72 days Rs. 12,713.76
Medical Expenses Rs. 55,750.87
Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000.00
Travelling Expenses Rs. 5,000.00
Total Rs.1,03,464.63 @
Rs. 1,03,500.00
10. Mr. Ketan Patil, learned Advocate for the Respondents, submits that the
Tribunal, after considering the entire material on record, has arrived at
osk 3 of 7
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
compensation. He further submits that the impugned Award requires no
interference. He therefore submits that the Appeal be dismissed on merits.
11. From the material on record, the following point for determination
arises in the present Appeal:
“Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the
Appellant is fair and justified?”
12. Perusal of the records indicates that the accident occurred between the
motorcycle ridden by the Appellant and the ST bus owned by Respondent No.
1. The records further indicate that the driver of the S.T. bus was charged
with offences punishable under Sections 279, 378 and 338 of the Indian
Penal Code, read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act and that Crime
No. 53 of 2004 was registered.
13. On appreciation of the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the
accident occurred due to the negligence of the ST bus driver and that the
Appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,03,500/- . Paragraph 9 of the
impugned Award reads as follows:-
9. Issue No.2 :
Petitioner's claim is for Rs.2,12,000/- under different heads.
According to him he was serving in M.S.E.B. Kolhapur and was
getting salary of Rs.10,595/-p.m. Due to accidental injuries he had
osk 4 of 7
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
sustained permanent disability. Due to accidental injuries he was
constrained to take a long leave and thereby he sustained a loss of
his income. As referred supra that petitioner had sustained
permanent disability to the extent of 38% and due to shortening of
his leg he is unable to stand properly, facing difficulty in sitting, by
folding legs and walking. In support of his pay and leave certificate
the petitioner has examined witness on his behalf as P.W.2 namely
Uday Prakash Anandrao Ranaware at Ex.34 who has deposed that,
petitioner is serving as a Peon in M.S.E.B. department and his pay
for February 2004 was Rs.10,595/-. He has produced on record the
relevant extract of pay bill which is marked as Ex.36. He has
further deposed that, petitioner was on leave since 22-3-2004 to
31-3-2005 and that leave was with half pay. He has also produced
on record the relevant order regarding leave of the petitioner
which is marked as Ex.37. From the evidence of this witness it
appears that, petitioner is still serving in M.S.E.B. There is no any
record to show that, due to permanent disability the petitioner was
constrained to leave his job. Therefore, though petitioner had
sustained disability to the major extent still he is in service and
thus there is no any future loss cause do him regarding his pay etc.
In spite of that, considering the nature of injuries and percentage
of the disablement he is entitled for the compensation of
Rs.25,000/- on account of loss caused to him due to permanent
disability. It appears that, petitioner was constrained to take a long
leave due to accidental injuries. In the salary certificate Ex.37 in
column No.5 it is mentioned that, petitioner was on leave for 72
days. P.W.2 Uday Ranaware has deposed that, the leave period of
the petitioner was with half pay. Therefore, considering the gross
salary of the petitioner Rs.10,595/- ½ of it comes to Rs.5297-
50ps. Now therefore it is necessary to calculate the loss of salary
osk 5 of 7
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
for the period of 72 days as mentioned in the salary certificate
Ex.37 which comes to Rs. 12,713-76ps. and the petitioner is
entitled for this amount. The petitioner has stated that, during the
period his hospitalization he was required to spend huge medical
expenditure. In support of his version he has produced on record
several medical bills, bills of hospitalization with list Ex.25/190. I
have gone through all these medical bills, bills of hospitalization
which are issued by the appropriate authority and during the
relevant period of hospitalization of the petitioner and those are
for Rs.55,750-87 and the petitioner is entitled for these medical
bills. In addition to that, he is also entitled for compensation of
Rs.5,000/- towards pains and sufferings considering the long
period of treatment due to grievous fracture injuries. He is also
entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards traveling.
attendance, nutritious food and other allied expenditure, Thus, he
is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.1,03,464-63 ps. Which
is rounded to Rs.1,03,500/- together with interest thereon @9%
p.a.from the date of petition.”
14. Though the reasoning of the Tribunal in awarding compensation
cannot be faulted, the issue is whether the compensation of Rs. 25,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal to the Appellant for 38% permanent disability, as
established by the Disability Certificate at Exhibit 38, is just. The Respondents
have neither filed any cross-appeal nor any cross-objection. In the facts and
circumstances of the case at hand, the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for
permanent disability would be just and fair.
osk 6 of 7
17-FA-1675-2006 (C).docx
15. In view of the above, the Appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and Award dated 19th April 2006 is modified to the limited extent
of enhancing the compensation for permanent disability from Rs. 25,000/- to
Rs. 50,000/-. The rest of the Award dated 19th April 2006 remains unaltered.
16. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced
amount of Rs. 25,000/-, along with interest @ 9% thereon from the date of
the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 658 of 2004 till deposit, within four
(4) weeks from today in the Registry of this Court.
17. Upon deposit of the said amount by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the
Appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount.
18. Registry to communicate this Judgment/Order to the Appellant.
19. Award be drawn accordingly.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.10.05
16:25:23
+0530
osk 7 of 7
Checking your session…