THE DIV. CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C, DIV. AHMEDNAGARversusAJINATH MANOHAR MOHITE

2026:BHC-AUG:30069



                                                  (1)                  904 fa 1722.18

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1722 OF 2018

                      THE DIV. CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C, DIV. AHMEDNAGAR
                                          VERSUS
                                 AJINATH MANOHAR MOHITE

                                                …..
            Advocate for Appellant : Ms. Raktate Chaitali P. h/f. Deshmukh Bhausaheb S.
                         Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Wagh Umakant U.
                                                …..

                                           CORAM :      SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                           DATE :       07.07.2026

           Per Court :-

           1.             This appeal is preferred by the appellant/M.S.RT.C. against the

           judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

           Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No.13 of 2012 dated 10.10.2007. The claimant's

           claim was allowed on the ground that he had sustained 100% permanent

           disability due to head injuries sustained in the vehicular accident.


           2.             The learned advocate for the appellant pointed out pleadings,

           evidence, grounds of objections of appeal and the reasons and finding in the

           impugned judgment. He submitted that neither the treating doctor nor any

           other medical practitioner, who could have deposed regarding the permanent

           disability as well as the functional permanent disability, was examined by the

           claimant to prove that he had sustained 100% functional disability. Lastly, it is
                                     (2)                  904 fa 1722.18

prayed that the reasons and findings recorded in the impugned judgment are

neither legal nor correct and are not sustainable in law. He prayed for setting

aside impugned judgment.      It was further pointed out that, by the order

passed below Exhibit-31, the learned Tribunal had directed the claimant to

examine an expert doctor to prove the permanent disability as well as the

functional permanent disability. However, the claimant failed to comply with

the said direction.


3.           The learned advocate for the respondent/claimant submitted that

the notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month was determined by the learned

Tribunal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the Gazette of India

published by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on 31.05.2010, wherein

the monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- were fixed. He submitted that the doctor

was not available for examination, and there is a report of the Bailiff to that

effect when he was summoned to prove the claimant's disability certificate.

He further submitted that the claimant had sustained 100% functional

disability. However, no amount towards future prospects was awarded to the

claimant, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680.

He submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and that the claimant is

entitled to the enhanced compensation in view of the law laid down by the
                                     (3)                 904 fa 1722.18

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhate & Ors. v. Santosh

s/o Namdeo Jadhav & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 467, wherein it has been held that

the Court is empowered to award just compensation even if the claimant has

not preferred an appeal, provided that the compensation awarded is

inadequate. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed.


4.          On perusal of the record and proceeding with the reasons and

findings recorded in the impugned judgment, it is evident that the claimant

neither examined the treating doctor nor complied with the directions issued

by the learned Tribunal to examine treating doctor for proving the permanent

functional disability. However, the learned Tribunal overlooked all these

aspects and held that the claimant had sustained 100% functional disability

and awarded compensation accordingly. The disability certificate certifying

40% permanent disability on account of the head injury sustained by the

claimant has not been proved by examining the doctor who issued it.

Likewise, the claimant's alleged 100% functional disability was not proved by

experts evidence. The directions issued below Exhibit-31 by learned Tribunal

were not complied with by the claimant. Therefore, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to determine the

claimant's 50% functional permanent disability on the principle of pre-

ponderence of the probability for the purpose of determining compensation.
                                      (4)                  904 fa 1722.18

5.          The claimant failed to prove his monthly income. Therefore, the

learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. However, as per

the notification of Minimum Wages published in the official Gazette dated

31.05.2010, referred to above, the claimant's notional income ought to have

been determined @ Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimant's functional

permanent disability is assessed @ 50% only, the resultant loss of earning

capacity would be Rs.4,000/- per month. The annual loss of income,

therefore, comes to (Rs.4,000/- × 12) Rs.48,000/-. The claimant was 23

years of age at the time of the accident. By applying the appropriate multiplier

of 18, the loss of income works out to (Rs.48,000/- × 18) Rs.8,64,000/-.


6.          In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant

is entitled to an addition of 40% amount of compensation towards future

prospects, which was not awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the

compensation under the head of loss of future prospects is modified. On an

addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects on the amount of

Rs.8,64,000/- comes to Rs.3,45,600/-. On adding that it works out to

(Rs.8,64,000/- + Rs.3,45,600/-) Rs.12,09,600/-. Adding the compensation

earlier awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.4,06,000/-, the

claimant is entitled to a total compensation of (Rs.12,09,600/- +

Rs.4,06,000/-) Rs.16,15,600/- instead of Rs.17,02,000/- awarded by the
                                        (5)                904 fa 1722.18

learned Tribunal.



7.               Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal

deserves to be reduced by (Rs.17,02,000/- − Rs.16,15,600/-) Rs.86,400/-. To

that extent, interference with the impugned judgment and award is justified.

A reduction in the compensation is of Rs.86,400/-. The said amount of

Rs.86,400/- shall be refunded to the appellant/MSRTC, with accrued interest

thereon and the remaining amount, together with the accrued interest, shall

be paid to the respondent/claimant in accordance with law. As per the above

calculation the Registry is directed to pay that deposited amount accordingly

to both the parties.



8.               The appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and

award deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following order.

                                     ORDER

I)         The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms and is accordingly

           disposed of.




                                                 [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.]



mubashir