Bombay High Court
THE MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGERversusSNAGITA SURESH MALI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R M JOSHI
Holding
The High Court held that the FIR and charge‑sheet against the bus driver established the bus’s involvement, and that the tribunal could rightly rely on a notional income figure, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
Summary
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) appealed a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal award of Rs.8,57,584 with interest to the Bombay High Court, contending that the tribunal erred in finding the bus involved in the accident and in accepting a notional monthly income of Rs.5,000 for the deceased without proof. MSRTC argued that the death certificate did not establish a vehicular cause of death and that no eyewitness testimony was presented. The respondents maintained that the evidence, including the FIR, charge‑sheet against the bus driver, and the tribunal’s assessment of notional income, sufficiently established the accident and justified the compensation awarded. The Court held that the FIR and charge‑sheet demonstrated the bus’s involvement, and that the tribunal was entitled to adopt a notional income figure in the absence of contrary evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the claimants were allowed to withdraw the deposited amount with interest, and the statutory amount was to be transmitted back to the tribunal.
Issues considered
- Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in concluding that the bus was involved in the accident in the absence of direct eyewitness evidence.
- Whether the tribunal was justified in accepting a notional monthly income of Rs.5,000 for the deceased without documentary proof.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to an enhancement of the awarded compensation absent additional material.
Subjects
- motor accident claim
- compensation
- evidentiary burden
- notional income
- appeal dismissal
- tribunal
- enhancement of compensation
Judgment
57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC
Priya Soparkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4075 OF 2019
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2022
The Maharashtra State Road Transport …Appellant/
Corporation Through its Divisional Manager Applicant
Versus
Sangita Suresh Mali and ors. …Respondents
Ms. Priyesha Patel i/by Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, for the
Appellant/Applicant.
Mr. Rayan S. Pawar, for the Respondents.
CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED: 17th JANUARY, 2026.
PC:-
1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of
admission.
2. This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and award
dated 1st April, 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition
(MACP) No.777 of 2017, whereby it claimed to be alleged that
grant of compensation of Rs.8,57,584/- with interest at the rate of
7% per annum.
PRIYA
RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Digitally signed by
PRIYA RAJESH
SOPARKAR
Date: 2026.01.20
10:24:02 +0530
Page 1 of 4
th
17 January, 2026.
57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation (MSRTC) submits that the Tribunal has
committed error in accepting the involvement of the bus in the
occurrence of the accident. It is her submission that in the written
statement, specifically issue has been raised with regard to the
non-involvement of the bus in the said accident. She argued that
there is no independent evidence to indicate that the deceased
died in a motor vehicle accident. In this regard, she made
reference to the death certificate, which according to her, indicates
that though the cause of death is mentioned as accidental death, it
cannot be assumed that the death has been caused on account of
the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident. She further
submitted that the Claimants have failed to lead any evidence,
more particularly, evidence of the eye-witness in order to prove the
facts from occurrence of the accident and involvement of the bus
therein. On the point of quantum, it is submitted that the Tribunal
has erred in accepting the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.
5000/- per month, without any proof for the same. On these
amongst other contentions, she seeks setting aside the impugned
judgment and award.
4. Learned counsel for the original Claimants supported the
impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the Claimants
are entitled for enhancement of the compensation, and without
filing any Appeal or cross-objection, such enhancement can be
granted.
5. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Nareshkumar and ors. reported in AIR
Page 2 of 4
th
17 January, 2026.
57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC
2020 SC 4424, the learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently
opposed the said contentions by pointing out that in absence of
any evidence being led by the Claimants before the Tribunal, this is
not a fit case for grant of enhancement.
6. The Claimants are required to prove the factum of
occurrence of the accident on probability, and the same can be
proved on the basis of police papers/charge-sheet. Admittedly, in
respect of the accident, first information report came to the lodged
on the same day. The report was lodged against the driver of the
S.T. bus. As admitted by the driver before the Tribunal, on 18 th
June, 2017, he alongwith the bus was taken to the police station,
and thereafter, he was produced before the Court. Further, there is
no dispute that on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet came
to be filed against the driver of the bus. All these facts clearly
indicate the involvement of the bus in the occurrence of the
accident. Unlike criminal trial involvement and negligence of
driver of bus need not be proved strictly. The evidence on record
makes case of Claimants’ probable.
7. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, it was
open for the Tribunal, even in absence of leading any evidence, to
consider the notional income. The notional income accepted by the
Tribunal at the rate of Rs.5,000/- is not excessive. Similarly,
computation of compensation has been done in accordance with
settled principles.
8. As far as the contention of the counsel for the
Respondents/Claimants with regard to the enhancement of
compensation, there is absolutely no material placed before the
Page 3 of 4
th
17 January, 2026.
57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC
Tribunal in order to accept the same for enhancement of the
compensation.
9. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) First Appeal stands 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.
10. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, the Interim
Application also stands disposed of.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.)
{
Page 4 of 4
th
17 January, 2026.
Checking your session…