Bombay High Court
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusDR. UDHAV VAMAN PARANJPE
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the Tribunal's award of Rs.2,00,000 is upheld.
Summary
The appellant, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, appealed against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award of Rs.2,00,000 to Dr. Udhav Vaman Paranjpe for a 30% disability arising from a road accident involving a state transport bus. The appellant argued that the accident was caused by contributory negligence of the respondent and that the compensation awarded was excessive. The Tribunal had found the bus driver negligent and applied a multiplier of 10 to calculate compensation, granting the amount claimed by the respondent. The High Court observed that no evidence was produced to establish the respondent's contributory negligence and that the respondent had voluntarily limited his claim to Rs.2,00,000, accepting the Tribunal's quantum. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's award and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the accident resulted from contributory negligence on the part of the respondent and the bus driver
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive
Subjects
- motor accident
- contributory negligence
- compensation
- disability
- tribunal award
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
18-FA-94-2002 (C).docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 94 OF 2002
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, ]
Vahatuk Bhavan, ]
Having its Office at Dr. A. Nair Marg, ]
Bellasis Road, Bombay Central, ]
Bombay – 400 008. ]
…...Appellant
(Orig. Opp. No.3)
Digitally signed
by OMKAR
SHIVAHAR
OMKAR KUMBHAKARN
SHIVAHAR
KUMBHAKARN Date:
2026.10.03
11:55:23
+0530
Versus
Udhav Vaman Paranjpe, ]
Age 51 years, Occup. - Medical Practitioner At & ]
Post Mavlange Taluka. ]
…...Respondent
(Orig. Applicant)
----
Ms. Pinky Bhansali (Through V.C.) a/w. Mr. Ketan Patil for Appellant.
None for respondent.
-------
Coram : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
Date : 28th September 2026.
ORAL JUDGEMENT :
1. Heard Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant.
2. By this Appeal, the Appellant has assailed the Judgment and Award
osk 1 of 6
18-FA-94-2002 (C).docx
dated 14.06.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ratnagiri
(“Tribunal”), in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 1997, whereby the
Tribunal awarded Rs.2,00,000/- to the Respondent for a 30% disability
sustained by the Respondent (“impugned Award”).
3. The Appellant is the Opponent No. 3, whereas the Respondent is the
Claimant in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 1997.
4. The facts relevant to this Appeal, as set out in the claim petition, are
that on 14.12.1996, the Respondent was travelling on his Bullet motorcycle,
registration No. MGP-740, from Ratnagiri towards Mavlange. When he
reached Balge Stop at Mavlange at about 8:15 p.m., a State Transport (“ST”)
bus, registration No. MH-12-Q-831, coming from the opposite direction,
dashed into his motorcycle. As a result of the impact, the Respondent was
thrown into a drainage channel/gutter on the left side of the road along with
his motorcycle and became unconscious. The Respondent sustained fractures
of the tibia and fibula. As the fractured bones had not fused despite being
placed in plaster, the Respondent had to undergo an operation. The Respon-
dent filed Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 183 of 1997, seeking compensa-
tion of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
5. This appeal was admitted on 22.01.2002.
osk 2 of 6
18-FA-94-2002 (C).docx
6. Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits that the
challenge to the impugned Award is twofold. First, the accident resulted from
contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent, as established by the
FIR which was registered against the Respondent and not against the driver
of the ST bus. She submits that the Respondent had sufficient space to
negotiate the ST bus; and Second, that the amount of compensation awarded
to the Respondent is excessive.
7. None appears for the Respondents, though duly served.
8. The following points are for consideration in the present Appeal:
(i) Whether the Appellant proves that the accident is a result of
contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent and
Mahadev Tukaram Jabare (driver) of the S.T. bus?
(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is
excessive?
9. The record was perused with the assistance of Ms. Pinky Bansali,
learned Advocate for the Appellant.
10. After assessing the material on record, particularly the Spot Panchnama
(Exhibit-22) and the deposition of the Respondent, the Tribunal has recorded
a categorical finding of rashness and negligence on the part of Mahadev
osk 3 of 6
18-FA-94-2002 (C).docx
Tukaram Jabare, the driver of the ST bus owned by the Appellant.
11. To show contributory negligence on the part of the Respondent, the
driver of the ST bus was required to lead evidence. Undeniably, neither the
Appellant nor Mahadev Tukaram Jabare (driver), examined any witness on
their behalf to lead evidence of rashness or negligence in driving on the part
of the Respondent. Notably, Mahadev Tukaram Jabare, who was Opponent
No.1 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.183 of 1997, is not even a party to
this Appeal.
12. Though an FIR was lodged against the Respondent, as submitted by
Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant and was subsequently
registered as Summary Case No. 18 of 1997, the records of this appeal
indicate that the Respondent was acquitted.
13. In view of the above, I do not find any error in the conclusion of the
Tribunal that the accident resulted from the negligence of the driver of the ST
bus.
14. With reference to the quantum of compensation, the fact that the
Respondent sustained an injury in the accident, the Respondent's partial
permanent disability of 30% and the Respondent being a doctor earning Rs.
8,000/- per month are not in dispute. The Respondent has produced the
Disability Certificate before the Tribunal at Exhibit-32.
osk 4 of 6
18-FA-94-2002 (C).docx
15. Applying the multiplier of 10, the Tribunal determined compensation
for 30% disability at Rs. 2,38,000/-. However, as the Respondent restricted
his claim to Rs. 2,00,000/-, the Tribunal, by the impugned Award, granted
only Rs. 2,00,000/-.
16. The Tribunal's conclusion to restrict the compensation amount, in view
of the Claimant's lower claim, is not tenable. Further, the Tribunal has
erroneously applied a multiplier of 10 instead of 11.
17. I was leaning to interfere with the said conclusions of the Tribunal in
relation to the compensation. However, Ms. Pinky Bansali, learned Advocate
for the Appellant, submits that the Respondent, a doctor by profession,
having consciously chosen to make a specific claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-, has not
raised any grievance against the impugned Award and again chose not to
appear in this appeal despite being served (Office note dated 03.09.2026).
She therefore requests that the compensation not be enhanced. Ms. Pinky
Bansali, learned Advocate for the Appellant, is perhaps right in her
submissions, as such, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, I
accept the request made by Ms. Pinky Bansali not to enhance the
compensation, by maintaining the compensation awarded to the Respondent
by the impugned Award.
18. In view of the above, both the points framed are answered in the
osk 5 of 6
18-FA-94-2002 (C).docx
negative, consequently, this Appeal is without merit and is dismissed.
19. If any amount is deposited by the Appellant in this appeal in respect of
the impugned Award, the Registry is directed to take immediate steps to
return it, along with any accrued interest, to the Respondent (Dr. Udhav
Vaman Paranjpe).
20. No orders as to costs.
21. Award be drawn accordingly.
[ ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. ]
osk 6 of 6
Checking your session…