Bombay High Court

MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THROUGH DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, THANEversusGANGADHAR RAKHMAJI KUTE

Decided: 28 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The court partially allowed the death and injury appeals, adjusting future prospects to 10%, and dismissed the other injury appeals.

Summary

The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) appealed against tribunal awards granting compensation to claimants arising from a 2 February 2018 road accident involving a private car and an MSRTC bus. The appellant argued that the tribunal erred by not attributing negligence to the car driver, by using a 15% rate for future prospects instead of the 10% rate prescribed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, and by relying on outdated income tax returns for loss of earnings calculations. The court held that, since the deceased and injured were passengers, the negligence of the car driver was not material to the liability of the bus operator, and that the tribunal should have applied a 10% future prospects factor. Consequently, the court partially allowed the death and injury claims (appeals 389 and 388) with revised quantum, while dismissing the other injury appeals (390 and 392). The order also directed the return of deposited amounts with interest and remitted records to the tribunal.

Issues considered

Whether MSRTC is liable for compensation despite alleged negligence of the private car driver.
Whether the tribunal erred in not considering the car driver's negligence.
Whether the tribunal correctly applied the percentage for future prospects in death and injury claims.
Whether the tribunal appropriately used income tax returns to assess loss of earnings.
Whether the tribunal's computation of disability and loss of earnings for injury claims was proper.

Subjects

negligence
motor accident
compensation
death claim
injury claim
future prospects
dependency
tribunal
appellate court
motor vehicle accident

Judgment

22 FA 389-23 AND ORS-C.DOC

Priya Soparkar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

FIRST APPEAL NO.389 OF 2023
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.388 OF 2023
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.390 OF 2023
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.392 OF 2023

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation …Appellant
Versus
Smt. Aruna Gangadhar Kute …Respondent

Mr. Nitesh V. Bhutekar with Ms. Priyesha Patel, for the Appellant.
Ms. Rina Kundu, for the Respondents.

CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 28th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-

1. This appeals filed by Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation (MSRTC) takes exception to the judgment and award
dated 29th September, 2022 passed in MACP Nos.9 of 2019, 5 of
2019, 6 of 2019 and 8 of 2019 respectively, whereby death claim
as well as injury claims filed by the Claimants, came to be allowed
by directing Corporation to pay compensation.
Digitally
signed by
PRIYA
PRIYA RAJESH
RAJESH SOPARKAR
SOPARKAR Date:
2026.01.30
15:09:32
+0530

Page 1 of 6
th
28 January, 2026.
22 FA 389-23 AND ORS-C.DOC

2. Since the present appeals arise out of the same accident, by
consent of both sides, all appeals are heard and decided together.

3. There is no dispute made by the parties with regard to the
fact that on 2nd February, 2018 at about 9.25 a.m. at Latifwadi
village an accident occurred involving motor-car bearing No.MH-
04-BY-4020 and State Transport Bus bearing registration No.MH-
20-BL-2724. In the said accident, the driver as well as passengers
of car sustained injuries and one of the passengers succumbed to
the injuries. Offence came to be registered against driver of the S.T.
Bus for rash and negligence driving of his vehicle. In this backdrop,
MACP Nos.9 of 2019, 5 of 2019, 6 of 2019 and 8 of 2019 came to
be filed for death and injury claim.

4. In MACP No.9 of 2019 (First Appeal No.389 of 2023) claim
is filed seeking compensation for loss of dependency on account of
the death of the deceased. First Appeal No.388 of 2023 is injury
claim arising out of MACP No.5 of 2019. Similarly, injury claims
were filed in MACP No.6 of 2019 (First Appeal No. 390 of 2023)
and MACP No.8 of 2019 (First Appeal No. 392 of 2023).

5. Learned counsel for the MSRTC submits that the Tribunal
has committed error in not considering the material evidence on
record which indicates that the accident in question has occurred
solely on account of the negligence on the part of the driver of the
car. It is his submission that the spot panchanama clearly indicates
that the driver of the car took sudden right turn and because of the
same the accident occurred. It is his submission that the Tribunal
ought to have held the driver of the car responsible for the

Page 2 of 6
th
28 January, 2026.
22 FA 389-23 AND ORS-C.DOC

occurrence of the accident and hence MSRTC is not liable to pay
compensation.

6. His contention is opposed by the learned counsel for the
Claimants contending that the Claimants/deceased were occupiers
of the car and were not driving the same. It is thus contended that
it became immaterial to decide in the present appeals as to at this
instance the accident had occurred.

7. It is argued on behalf of the Claimants that the driver of the
car filed claim before the Tribunal which was allowed and the
appeals filed against the same is withdrawn.

8. Learned counsel for the MSRTC submits that the First Appeal
No.391 of 2023 came to be withdrawn only for the reason that the
amount of compensation involved therein was negligible. It is his
further submission that the order passed by this Court permitting
withdrawal indicates that the disposal of the said Appeal would
not affect merits of the present Appeals.

9. In so far as the issue of negligence or contributory
negligence of the driver of the car does not become relevant in
present Appeals in view of the fact that the injured or the deceased
were not driving the said car. Since there were passengers, it is
open for them to file a claim against both or any of the joint tort-
feasors. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was not required to go
into the issue about negligence and involvement of the State
Transport Bus coupled with the fact that charge-sheet came to be
filed against the driver of the bus was sufficient to allow the claim.
Apart from this, this Court find substance in the contention of the

Page 3 of 6
th
28 January, 2026.
22 FA 389-23 AND ORS-C.DOC

counsel for MSRTC and objections ought to be raised by the
learned counsel for the Claimants stand rejected.

10. On quantum learned counsel for the MSRTC in First Appeal
No.389 of 2023 submits that the Tribunal has committed error in
not considering the age of the injured while determining the
percentage of future prospects. It is his contention that the grant of
future prospects at the rate of 15% is incorrect as the same not
supported by the position of law. He, therefore, seeks of the
impugned judgment and award. Similarly, it is the argument in
respect of First Appeal No.388 of 2023, wherein according to him
the future prospects are considered on higher side. It is his forth
contention that the Tribunal has committed error in relying upon
the income tax returns filed four years prior to the occurrence of
the accident.

11. In First Appeals Nos.390 and 392 of 2023 he takes exception
to the manner in which the computation is done by the Tribunal.

12. Learned counsel for the Claimants supported the impugned
judgment and award.

13. Perusal of the evidence on record clearly indicates that the
Tribunal in each case has gone through the evidence led by the
Claimants before it and recorded findings with regard to the
injuries and disabilities caused to the Claimants in the injury claim.

14. Having regard to the evidence on record and while
determining injury claims, evidence of the expert is led and there
was no reason for Tribunal not to accept determination of

Page 4 of 6
th
28 January, 2026.
22 FA 389-23 AND ORS-C.DOC

disability assessed by them. The Tribunal, however, while granting
future prospects ought to have considered the judgment in case of
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others
reported in 2013 SCC Online Bom 1718 owing to the age of
injured and deceased, the future prospects ought to have been
considered to the extent of 10% instead 15%. Thus, the judgment
and award passed challenging First Appeals Nos.389 and 388 of
2023 deserve partial interference.

15. As far as First Appeals Nos.390 and 392 of 2023 are
concerned, evidence on record clearly shows that the findings
rendered by the Tribunal on disability, so also the loss of income
are in consonance with evidence on record and hence justified
deserving no interference therein.

16. The Claimant therefore would be entitled to receive the
following compensation in First Appeal No. 389 of 2023:-

Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. Hospitalization and Medical expenses Rs.1,68,357/-
2. Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/-
3. Conveyance Rs.5,000/-
4. Special diet Rs.10,000/-
5. Nursing and personal attendance Rs.10,000/-
6. Loss of enjoyment and discomfort in Rs.50,000/-
life
7. Permanent disability Rs.30,000/-
8. Loss of earnings Rs.24,000/-
9. Loss of future prospect Rs.2,85,120/-
Total Rs.6,12,477/-

Page 5 of 6
th
28 January, 2026.
22 FA 389-23 AND ORS-C.DOC

17. The Claimant therefore would be entitled to receive the
following compensation in First Appeal No. 388 of 2023:-

Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. Dependency Rs.28,967 per months x Rs.31,28,436/-
12 months x 9 factor
2. Loss of consortium for 3 Applicants Rs.1,20,000/-
Rs. 40,000 each.
3. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
4. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.32,78,436/-

18. In view of the above, First Appeals Nos.389 of 2023 and 388
of 2023 stand partly allowed and the following order is passed in
First Appeals Nos.390 and 392 of 2023.

ORDER

(i) First Appeals Nos. 390 and 392 of 2023 stand dismissed.

(ii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited
amount alongwith accrued interest thereon.

(iii) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal
alongwith accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to
withdraw it as per Rule.

(iv) Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal.

19. In view of the disposal of all the Appeals, Interim
Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{

Page 6 of 6
th
28 January, 2026.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…