Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Presented on 24.02.2023
Registered on 02.03.2023
Decided on 10.12.2025
Duration 2Y 10M 8D
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI
(PRESIDED OVER BY S.E. BANGAR)
M.A.C.P.No.326 OF 2023 Exh.
Ramshankar Harihar Vishwakarma
Aged about 39 years and residing at :
56, Anegapur, Choudharipur, Parsipur,
St.Rohidas Nagar, UP 221402
Cell : 7977281407 ....Applicant
Versus
M/s. B.G.Shirke Cons. Tech.Pvt.Ltd.
(Owner of M/Car No.MH-12-JC-5205)
72-76, Indl.Estate, Mundhwa
Pune 411 036 ....Opp.Party
And
New India Assun. Co.Ltd.(HUB)
87, GR.Floor, MG Road, Fort,
Mumbai 400001
Ins.Pol.No.:15040531220100000811
Valid from : 1.10.2022 t0 30.09.2023 .....Insurer
Mr. V.P.Puri, advocate for the Applicant.
Mr.Mayuresh Nagle advocate for the Opposite party.
Mr.S.V.Gawai, advocate for the Insurer
-- 1 of 91 --
2 MACP No.326/2023[J]
J U D G M E N T
(Delivered on 10/12/2025)
(Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988)
1. Introduction
The present petition is filed under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the applicant, Shri
Ramashankar Harihar Vishwakarma, seeking compensation
on account of bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicular
accident which occurred on 27.12.2022 within the
jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
2. Opponent No.1 is the owner of the offending motor
car and Opponent No.2 is its insurer under a policy
admittedly valid on the date of the accident. The applicant
alleges that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the offending vehicle by the driver engaged by
Opponent No.1.
3. The opponents have filed written statements and
contested the proceedings. Evidence—oral and
documentary—along with written arguments has been
carefully considered.
2. Facts of the Case
4. The applicant, aged about 39 years at the time of
accident, was employed at BP Petrol Pump, Kandivali (W),
-- 2 of 91 --
3 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Mumbai, earning a monthly income of 20,700/-	₹ .
5. On 27.12.2022, while the applicant was riding his
motorcycle MH-47-AX-3566 at a moderate speed, the
offending motor car came in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed against his motorcycle, causing him to fall and
sustain serious injuries.
6. The accident was reported to the police. FIR, spot
panchanama, motor vehicle inspection report and charge-
sheet were filed against the driver of the offending car,
supporting the applicant’s version.
7. The applicant suffered fracture of the left tibia-fibula
and underwent treatment including hospitalisation,
surgery / plaster, medication and physiotherapy. He claims
permanent disability, loss of income, pain and suffering and
other consequential losses.
3. Defence of Opponent No.1 and Opponent No.2
8. Opponent No.1 has denied negligence and has alleged
contributory negligence by the applicant, while also
contending that the driver had a valid driving licence.
9. Opponent No.2 – insurer – has taken statutory
defences under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act, alleging
breach of policy conditions. It has also disputed income,
disability and quantum of claim. Insurance cover for the
-- 3 of 91 --
4 MACP No.326/2023[J]
relevant period, however, is not disputed.
3. Pleadings of the Parties
3.1 Case of the Applicant:
10. In brief, the case of the applicant, Shri Ramshankar
Harihar Vishwakarma, is that on 27.12.2022 at about 16:30
hours, he was riding his motorcycle No. MH-47-AX-3566 at
a slow speed and on the correct side of the road near Shop
No.2, Shiv Society, Borivali Road, Satya Nagar, Borivali
(W), Mumbai, when a motor car bearing No.MH-12-JC-
5205 (hereinafter “the offending car”), allegedly driven at a
high and excessive speed in a rash and negligent manner
and without horn or signal, came from behind and dashed
his motorcycle, resulting in his fall and sustaining injuries.
The applicant pleads that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur
applies and that the accident occurred solely due to the
gross rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending
car.
11. The applicant has averred that he was then aged
about 39 years, working in service with B.P. Petrol Pump,
Mhada Plot No.128, Mahavir Nagar, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai, drawing a monthly salary of 20,700/-. He claims	₹
to have suffered fracture of left tibia/fibula (ORIF done)
and other serious injuries, for which he took treatment at
Shatabdi Municipal Hospital from 27.12.2022 to
16.01.2023, incurring around 50,000/- towards medical	₹
expenses, special diet and conveyance, and that he
-- 4 of 91 --
5 MACP No.326/2023[J]
continues to require treatment. He further pleads that he is
suffering pain, difficulty in performing routine activities,
and that the injuries are likely to result in permanent partial
disablement, for which disability certificate will be
produced.
12. The applicant states that the opponent No.1 is the
registered owner of the offending car and that the vehicle
was duly insured with opponent No.2 – New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. under a policy valid from 01.10.2022 to
30.09.2023. It is averred that the driver was acting as
servant/agent of opponent No.1 in the course of
employment and with its knowledge and permission and
that both the owner and insurer are, therefore, jointly and
severally liable to pay compensation. The applicant assesses
his total claim at 4,00,000/-, but restricts it to 25,000/-	₹ ₹
under Section 140 of the M.V. Act (no fault liability) and
1,00,000/- under Section 166 for the purpose of court	₹
fees, with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of application.
He also explains that though a TAR was registered at
Borivali Police Station, he did not insist on lodging an FIR
as the driver apologised and he, on humanitarian grounds,
did not press criminal action.
Summary of the Pleadings of Opposite Party No.1 (Owner)
13. The Opposite Party No.1, M/s. B. G. Shirke
Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., the registered owner of
-- 5 of 91 --
6 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Motor Car No. MH-12-JC-5205, has filed its Written
Statement on 06 November 2023, contesting the claim in
toto. At the outset, the Opponent has categorically denied
all allegations made in the claim application as being false,
misleading, vague, baseless and legally untenable, except to
the extent specifically admitted.
14. The Opponent admits that the said vehicle belongs to
it and that it was duly insured with New India Assurance
Company Ltd. under a valid policy bearing No.
15040531220100000811, which was in force on the date of
the alleged accident. It is further pleaded that the driver
was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the
relevant time. On these admitted facts, the Opponent
asserts that the primary and vicarious liability, if any, lies
upon the insurer and therefore seeks dismissal of the claim
against itself.
15. The Opponent disputes the very manner of accident
as pleaded by the applicant. It is specifically contended that
the alleged place of accident is a narrow and busy locality,
where the possibility of driving at high speed in a rash and
negligent manner does not arise. The allegation that the
vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner is stated
to be false and concocted. It is further asserted that, in fact,
the Opponents themselves informed Borivali Police Station
about the accident. According to the Opponent, no FIR was
registered, considering the nature of the accident and the
-- 6 of 91 --
7 MACP No.326/2023[J]
injuries allegedly suffered by the applicant.
16. With respect to injuries, the Opponent has seriously
disputed the gravity and seriousness of the injuries claimed
by the applicant. It is specifically pleaded that the applicant
was never admitted in the hospital, nor was he given any
serious medical treatment as alleged. The Opponent points
out that no permanent partial disability certificate has been
produced till date and contends that the claim of permanent
disability is unsupported by any medical evidence. Without
prejudice, the Opponent has called upon the applicant to
obtain a disability certificate from the Government Medical
Board or AIIPMR, Haji Ali, Mumbai, if he claims permanent
disablement.
In its para-wise reply, the Opponent states that:
17. The general factual averments contained in
paragraphs 1 to 13 of the application are stated to be as per
record, without specific comments.
18. The Opponent denies knowledge of and does not
admit the correctness of the applicant’s age, occupation,
employment, salary, and income details, and puts the
applicant to strict proof thereof.
19. The details of the accident and alleged acts of
negligence described in paragraph 15 of the application are
also not admitted and are denied for want of proof.
20. The Opponent denies that the applicant is suffering
from any serious injury or permanent disability in the
-- 7 of 91 --
8 MACP No.326/2023[J]
absence of supporting medical documents.
21. The Opponent further contends that the
compensation claim of 4,00,000/- is excessive and	₹
exaggerated, and that the applicant has not produced
cogent documentary evidence in support of the quantum
claimed. The Opponent reserves the right to rely upon
additional documents and to amend or supplement the
Written Statement if necessary.
22. In the prayer clause, the Opponent has sought:
1. Dismissal of the claim application against Opponent
No.1, and
2. Such other orders as the Tribunal may deem fit in the
interest of justice.
23. The Written Statement is verified by Shri Satish
Pandharinath Daundkar, AGM (Legal) of the Opponent
Company, who has also filed a supporting affidavit dated 25
April 2024, affirming that he is the authorized
representative of the Company by virtue of a Board
Resolution dated 14 March 2017 and that the contents of
the Written Statement are true and correct to his
knowledge based on company records. Through the
affidavit also, the Opponent reiterates its prayer for
dismissal of the application against it.
3.2 Defence of Opponent No.1 – Owner:
24. Opponent No.1 – M/s B.G. Shirke Construction
Technology Pvt. Ltd., the registered owner of the offending
-- 8 of 91 --
9 MACP No.326/2023[J]
car, has filed its Written Statement generally denying the
averments in the claim petition as false, vague, misleading
and not maintainable either in law or on facts. It, however,
admits ownership of motor car No. MH-12-JC-5205 and
that the vehicle was duly insured with opponent No.2 under
policy No. 15040531220100000811, valid on the date of
the alleged accident, and that the driver held a valid driving
licence. On that basis, opponent No.1 contends that, if at all
any liability arises, the same is that of the insurer, and the
claim against opponent No.1 deserves to be dismissed.
25. Opponent No.1 disputes the allegation of rash and
negligent driving and asserts that the place of the alleged
accident is a narrow and busy area, where the question of
driving at high speed does not arise. It is suggested that the
allegations of high speed, rashness and traffic violations are
false and concocted. It is further pleaded that opponent
No.1’s representative personally informed the Borivali
Police Station about the accident and that, looking to the
nature of the accident and injuries, no FIR was lodged. The
seriousness of the injuries is also put in issue by stating that
the applicant was not admitted in hospital as alleged and
that no permanent partial disability certificate has been
produced; without prejudice, the applicant is called upon to
obtain disability assessment from a Government Medical
Board/AIIPMR, Haji Ali. The details of the applicant’s age,
occupation, income and employment are stated to be within
his special knowledge and are not admitted for want of
-- 9 of 91 --
10 MACP No.326/2023[J]
proof. The quantum of 4,00,000/- is termed excessive and	₹
exuberant, and opponent No.1 prays for dismissal of the
claim against it.
Summary of the pleadings of the Insurer (New India
Assurance Co. Ltd.) :
26. The Insurer, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has
filed a detailed Written Statement vehemently opposing the
claim petition. At the outset, it contends that the claim
application is bad in law, improper, not tenable and not
maintainable against it under the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act. All allegations and averments in the claim
petition are stated to be baseless, misleading, vague and not
specific, and are therefore denied in toto, with the applicant
being put to strict proof of every pleading by cogent
documentary evidence.
27. The Insurer asserts that the compensation claimed is
highly excessive, exorbitant and without legal basis or
justification, and that there is no proper break-up or
calculation shown as to how the amount has been arrived
at. It further pleads that the Tribunal cannot entertain the
claim if it is barred by law, if any other claim or case
regarding the same accident is pending elsewhere, if the
applicant has already received compensation in respect of
the same accident, or if the application is filed without
proper territorial or legal jurisdiction. The Insurer also
asserts that the applicant has not furnished proper and
satisfactory proof of his address as shown in the application.
-- 10 of 91 --
11 MACP No.326/2023[J]
28. On the core requirement of negligence under Section
166 M.V. Act, the Insurer submits that negligence of the
driver of the motor car MH-12-JC-5205 is the “prime-most”
condition for maintainability. It alleges that the case of
negligence put forward by the applicant is false and
fabricated, made only with a view to claim compensation. It
disputes the very involvement of the motor car in the
accident, contending that the car and its driver are being
falsely implicated without any fault on their part. The
Insurer insists that the applicant must strictly prove (i) that
he sustained injuries in the alleged accident, (ii) that the
said motor car was actually involved, and (iii) that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
motor car driver; and that in the absence of such proof, no
compensation can be awarded.
29. On the contrary, the Insurer alleges that the accident
was the result of the sole and sheer negligence of the
applicant himself, who was riding motorcycle No. MH-47-
AX-3566. It is pleaded that the applicant/motorcycle rider
was driving at high and excessive speed, without proper
lookout for traffic, and that he suddenly brought his
motorcycle in front of the motor car in undue haste,
without signal, and applied sudden brakes, thereby causing
the accident. The Insurer contends that the last opportunity
to avoid the accident lay with the applicant, who failed to
exercise due care, and hence he alone is to be blamed. The
-- 11 of 91 --
12 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Insurer therefore says that no cause of action lies against it
for an accident which, according to it, did not occur due to
any negligence of the car driver. It prays for dismissal of the
claim with compensatory costs.
30. The Insurer then sets out policy and statutory
defences. It admits issuance of an insurance policy for the
period 01.10.2022 to 30.09.2023 in respect of the motor
car, but states that its liability is strictly subject to receipt of
premium and full compliance with Section 64-VB of the
Insurance Act, and more importantly, subject to the terms,
conditions, limitations, exceptions, endorsements and
warranties of the policy, and to compliance with the
provisions of the M.V. Act and Rules, including Sections 3,
4, 5, 39, 147 and 149. It emphasises that the policy is a
contract of insurance and is binding on the insured, and
that any breach of policy conditions, misrepresentation,
fraud, suppression of material facts, or violation of law by
the insured or driver would absolve the Insurer of liability.
31. The Insurer stresses that its liability arises only if the
vehicle is driven by a person holding a valid and effective
driving licence for the class of vehicle, the vehicle is not
used for hire or reward or in violation of permitted use, and
all vehicular documents such as RC, PUC, tax papers, etc.
are valid and in order at the time of the accident. It states
that no details of the driver, driving licence, or vehicular
documents are furnished with the claim application as
-- 12 of 91 --
13 MACP No.326/2023[J]
required under Rule 254(5)(iii) of the Maharashtra Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, and that the police papers also do not
establish that the motor car driver held a valid licence and
documents. It complains that statutory requirements under
Section 158(6) M.V. Act and Rule 150 (Form 54) regarding
forwarding of accident information and documents to the
insurer have not been complied with, and that it has
received no such report from the police.
32. The Insurer further submits that under Section 134(c)
M.V. Act, it was the duty of the owner to forthwith intimate
the accident and furnish particulars of the policy, vehicle
and driver, but the owner has not complied. In the absence
of proof that the car was driven by a person holding a valid
licence and that all vehicle papers were valid, the Insurer
asserts that no liability attaches to it. It also contends that,
since there is no clear proof that the owner authorised or
entrusted the vehicle to the driver, the motor car appears to
have been driven unauthorisedly, thereby excluding
vicarious liability of the owner and, by extension, indemnity
liability of the Insurer. It relies on Section 149(2) M.V. Act,
asserting that there is a clear case of breach of policy
conditions by the insured and that, therefore, the contract
of insurance stands discharged and incapable of
performance, leaving any liability, if at all, on the owner
alone.
33. The Insurer then makes detailed para-wise denials. It
-- 13 of 91 --
14 MACP No.326/2023[J]
disputes the applicant’s age, occupation and monthly
income of 20,700/-, stating that no documentary proof	₹
(such as appointment letter, salary slips, Form 16, income
tax returns etc.) is produced and suggesting that the age
may be understated and income exaggerated to claim
higher compensation. It disputes the applicant’s alleged job
and skills, and contends that even the FIR does not mention
such occupation.
34. The Insurer also denies the manner of accident, the
date, time and place as pleaded, and challenges the alleged
injuries, treatment and expenditure. It disputes that the
applicant was treated or hospitalised as claimed, or that he
incurred medical expenses of 50,000/-. It also pleads that	₹
any amount already received by the applicant under
mediclaim, personal accident policies, group insurance, ex
gratia payments, employer benefits etc. should be deducted
from any compensation awarded.
35. As regards injuries and disability, the Insurer asserts
that the injuries are at best minor/simple, that there is no
permanent or temporary disability as alleged, and that the
medical papers do not support such a case. It points out
that Form Comp. AA is not filed and that the injuries do not
amount to “permanent disablement” within the meaning of
Section 142 M.V. Act. It denies that the applicant’s working
or earning capacity is reduced, or that he is unable to
perform his normal activities, or that he will require future
-- 14 of 91 --
15 MACP No.326/2023[J]
treatment. The Insurer also contends that, in any event,
interest, if awarded, should not exceed 6% p.a., in line with
judicial pronouncements, and only where there is no
deliberate delay on the claimant’s part.
36. The Insurer further criticises the police investigation,
alleging that any criminal case filed against the motor car
driver is false and fabricated, possibly in collusion with the
applicant, and that wrong and concocted statements have
been recorded. It asserts that the FIR and charge-sheet do
not conclusively establish negligence and that the Tribunal
must independently decide negligence after proper enquiry,
rather than relying mechanically on police papers. It also
suggests that, at the highest, the accident may be treated as
an inevitable and unfortunate accident, not attributable to
negligence of the motor car driver.
37. The Insurer additionally raises the plea of non-joinder
of necessary parties, pointing out that the owner, driver and
insurer of the motorcycle are not impleaded, and that even
the driver of the motor car has not been made a party. In its
view, the motorcycle and its rider were also involved and
primarily responsible for the accident, and therefore their
owner, driver and insurer are proper and necessary parties.
It contends that in their absence, the claim is not properly
constituted and not maintainable.
38. Without prejudice to its total denial of liability, the
-- 15 of 91 --
16 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Insurer pleads in the alternative that if the Tribunal
ultimately holds that the motor car was involved and that
there was negligence on the part of its driver, then the case
should be treated as one of contributory negligence, with a
very high degree of negligence on the part of the
motorcycle rider. It suggests that the negligence of the
motorcycle rider be assessed at about 90%, and that of the
motor car driver at only about 10%, and prays for
apportionment accordingly if at all any compensation is
awarded.
39. The Insurer reserves its right to amend, add to or alter
its Written Statement and to file additional documents and
defences as may become necessary. In conclusion, it denies
any liability to pay compensation or interest as claimed by
the applicant and prays that the claim petition be dismissed
summarily with costs throughout, particularly as against the
Insurer, on the grounds of non-maintainability, breach of
statutory provisions and breach of policy conditions.
40. Separately, the Insurer has also filed an application
under Section 170 M.V. Act, pointing out that the owner
(Opposite Party) has failed to defend the matter on merits
despite service, and therefore praying that the Insurer be
permitted to defend the claim on all grounds available to
the owner as well as to the Insurer.
3.3 Defence of Opponent No.2 – Insurer:
-- 16 of 91 --
17 MACP No.326/2023[J]
41. Opponent No.2 – The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
has filed a detailed Written Statement raising several
preliminary and statutory defences. It contends that the
claim application is bad in law, improper and not
maintainable against it; that all allegations are denied in
toto as baseless and vague; and that the applicant must
strictly prove each pleading by cogent documentary
evidence. The insurer terms the compensation claimed as
excessive, exorbitant and without legal basis, pointing out
absence of proper break-up and justification and also
questioning the correctness and proof of the applicant’s
address, age, occupation and income.
42. On the issue of negligence and involvement, the
insurer submits that negligence of the driver of the
offending car is a sine qua non for maintainability under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act. It alleges that the case of
negligence as pleaded by the applicant is false and
fabricated and that the involvement of the car itself is
seriously disputed. According to the insurer, the alleged
accident is, in fact, the outcome of the sole and sheer
negligence of the applicant, who was riding motorcycle No.
MH-47-AX-3566 at high speed, without proper lookout, and
who suddenly brought his motorcycle in front of the car in
undue haste, without signal, and applied sudden brakes,
thereby causing the accident. It is thus pleaded that the last
opportunity to avoid the accident lay with the applicant,
-- 17 of 91 --
18 MACP No.326/2023[J]
and that no cause of action arises against the insurer for an
accident not caused by any negligence of the car driver. The
insurer also alleges that any police case against the car
driver is false or improperly investigated and that the
Tribunal must independently determine negligence on the
basis of evidence.
43. The insurer admits issuance of a policy of insurance
for the offending car for the period 01.10.2022 to
30.09.2023 but asserts that its liability is strictly subject to
the terms, conditions, limitations, exceptions and
warranties of the policy and to full compliance of the
provisions of the M.V. Act and Rules, including Sections 3,
4, 5, 39, 147 and 149, as well as Section 64-VB of the
Insurance Act. It points out that the claim petition does not
furnish the mandatory particulars and documents regarding
the driver, his driving licence and vehicle documents as
required under Rule 254(5)(iii) of the Maharashtra Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989, and that even the police papers do
not establish that the car driver held a valid and effective
licence and other requisite documents at the time of the
accident. It is further pleaded that the owner has failed to
comply with his statutory duty under Section 134(c) M.V.
Act to furnish accident and policy particulars to the insurer.
On these grounds, the insurer alleges breach of policy
conditions and invokes its defences under Section 149(2)
M.V. Act, contending that in the event of such breaches, the
contract of insurance stands discharged and the insurer has
-- 18 of 91 --
19 MACP No.326/2023[J]
no liability to indemnify the insured, leaving any liability, if
at all, on the owner.
44. The insurer also raises objections of non-joinder of
necessary parties, pointing out that the owner, driver and
insurer of the motorcycle have not been impleaded, and
even the driver of the offending car is not made a party,
though the motorcycle is also shown to be involved in the
police papers. It therefore contends that the application is
not properly constituted and is not maintainable for this
reason as well. The insurer denies the nature and extent of
injuries, the claim of disability and the alleged impact on
earning capacity, and asserts that at the highest the
applicant sustained minor/simple injuries which do not
result in permanent disablement within the meaning of
Section 142 M.V. Act. It also disputes the claim for interest
at 9% p.a., contending that interest, if at all awarded,
should be in line with prevailing bank rates and subject to
absence of delay on the claimant’s part.
45. Without prejudice to its total denial, the insurer has,
in the alternative, pleaded contributory negligence,
contending that if the involvement of the offending car and
some negligence on the part of its driver are ultimately held
proved, then the major share of negligence (about 90%)
should be attributed to the motorcycle rider and only a
minor share (about 10%) to the car driver. The insurer has
also filed an application under Section 170 of the M.V. Act,
-- 19 of 91 --
20 MACP No.326/2023[J]
stating that the owner has failed to contest the matter on
merits despite service, and has sought permission to defend
the claim on all grounds available to the owner as well as to
the insurer. In conclusion, opponent No.2 prays that the
claim petition be dismissed with costs, particularly as
against the insurer.
4. Issues
46. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, my
learned predecessor framed the following issues for
determination in this petition at Exh. 7. I proceed to record
my findings before each of them for the reasons to follow
thereafter:
Nos. Issues Findings
1 Does petitioner prove that the
accident took place on
27.12.2022 due to rash and
negligent driving ofMotor Car
(MH-12-JC-5205)?
In the Affirmative
2 Does petitioner prove that in
said accident, he sustained
injuries?
In the Affirmative
3 Does Insurer prove that
petition is bad for non joinder
of necessary parties as
claimed?
In the Negative
4 Does Insurer prove that there
is breach of terms and
conditions of Insurance policy?
In the Negative
5 Does petitioner is entitled for Yes, as per final
-- 20 of 91 --
21 MACP No.326/2023[J]
amount of compensation from
opponents? If yes, what
amount and from whom?
order below.
6 What order and award ? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
47. For the purpose of appreciation of evidence properly I
have paraphrased the questions required to be answered
while determining the issues:
1. Whether the applicant proves that on 27.12.2022, at
about 16:30 hours, near Shop No.2, Shiv Society, Borivali
Road, Satya Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai, he sustained
bodily injuries in a motor vehicular accident involving
motor car bearing No. MH-12-JC-5205, due to rash and
negligent driving of its driver?
2. Whether the applicant proves that at the material time of
the accident, he was aged about 39 years, employed in
service at BP Petrol Pump, Kandivali (W), earning monthly
income of about 20,700/-, and that on account of the	₹
injuries sustained he has suffered permanent disability and
consequential loss?
3. Whether opponent No.2 – New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
– proves that there was any breach of the terms and
conditions of the policy and/or of the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, such as absence of valid and
effective driving licence or other mandatory vehicular
documents, so as to exonerate or limit its liability under
Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?
4. Whether the accident, if proved, was the result of
-- 21 of 91 --
22 MACP No.326/2023[J]
contributory negligence and/or sole negligence on the part
of the applicant/motorcycle rider of MH-47-AX-3566, and if
so, to what extent?
5. Whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, and if
yes, to what amount, under which heads and from which of
the opponents, jointly and/or severally?
6. What order and award?
Appreciation of Evidence of AW-1 (Applicant)
48. The applicant, Ramshankar Harihar Vishwakarma,
has examined himself as AW-1 and filed his claim affidavit
at Exh.23 in support of the pleadings.
(a) Substance of Examination-in-Chief
49. In his affidavit, AW-1 reiterates that on 27.12.2022 at
about 16:30 hours, he was proceeding on motorcycle No.
MH-47-AX-3566 at a slow speed near Shiv Society, Borivali
Road, Satya Nagar, Borivali (W), Mumbai, when a motor
car bearing No. MH-12-JC-5205 came from his left side at a
high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, without horn
or signal, and dashed the motorcycle, causing him to fall
and sustain injuries. He attributes the accident solely to the
rash and negligent driving of the car driver.
50. He further deposes that he was admitted in Shatabdi
Municipal Hospital from 27.12.2022 to 16.01.2023, where
his left leg below knee was operated and ORIF for left
tibia/fibula fracture was carried out. He states that he
incurred about 11,000/- towards treatment/medicines,	₹
about 20,000/- towards special diet, and 10,000/-	₹ ₹
towards conveyance. He claims that he continues to suffer
-- 22 of 91 --
23 MACP No.326/2023[J]
pain in the left leg, walks with a limp, cannot run or climb
stairs normally, and that permanent partial disability has
been assessed at 56% by Dr. Naresh Khanna, disability
certificate having been produced.
51. As to income, he states that at the time of the accident
he was working at BP Petrol Pump, Mahavir Nagar,
Kandivali (W), earning about 20,000/- per month, and	₹
that he remained out of work for 8–9 months and lost
salary for that period.
52. In court, he identifies his affidavit and affirms its
correctness. He proves the certified copy of the General
Diary / Station Diary entry (Exh.25), his statement
(Exh.26), the insurance policy of the offending vehicle
(Exh.27), his Aadhar card (Exh.28), original medical bills
(Exh.29) and the MLC, discharge card and OPD papers
from Shatabdi Hospital (Exh.30 collectively).
(b) Cross-Examination – Contradictions and Admissions
53 In cross-examination on behalf of the owner/insurer,
certain important aspects emerge:
1. Role on the motorcycle (rider vs pillion):
In the affidavit and pleadings, AW-1 states that “I was
riding my m/cycle No. MH-47-AX-3566”.
However, in cross-examination he states, “I was not riding
the motor cycle”, and further says he does not know the
name of the person who was riding the motorcycle on
which he was a pillion rider.
He then says he cannot say that one Mayuresh Atade was
-- 23 of 91 --
24 MACP No.326/2023[J]
not riding that motorcycle, and also asserts that the rider
held a valid driving licence and offers to produce it.
This is a material contradiction going to the root of the
manner of accident and his own role, and creates a serious
doubt about his reliability on the question who was riding,
and therefore on the precise manner in which the accident
occurred.
2. Manner of accident / negligence:
Despite the above contradiction, he consistently denies the
suggestions that the motorcycle was on the wrong side or
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the
motorcycle rider.
He maintains that the accident did not occur due to
negligence of “our motorcycle rider” and denies that the
claim is bogus.
3. Income and employment:
He admits that he has not filed any document to show that
he was earning 20,000/- per month (no appointment	₹
letter, salary slips, Form 16, etc. are placed on record).
Thus, his income remains uncorroborated oral evidence.
4. Medical bills and hospitalisation:
One chemist bill dated 06.01.2023 is admittedly not in his
name, but he volunteers that the name therein is that of his
wife Anita, which is plausible.
He admits that he has not filed prescriptions corresponding
to the chemist bills but specifically denies the suggestion
that the bills are false.
-- 24 of 91 --
25 MACP No.326/2023[J]
He also emphatically denies the suggestion that he was
never admitted in Shatabdi Hospital, insisting that he was
admitted and discharged and that the discharge card exists.
5. Disability and present condition:
He affirms pain, difficulty in walking/standing and
functional limitations, but in cross-examination states that
he has not taken treatment from Dr. Khanna and that at
present he is not taking treatment for accidental injuries.
This is not necessarily inconsistent with the affidavit, which
only says that disability was assessed by Dr. Naresh Khanna,
and does not specifically say that Dr. Khanna treated him.
However, it does somewhat weaken the impression of
ongoing treatment and current medical supervision.
6. Leave and salary loss:
He states that he has been serving at the petrol pump since
2004, that he was on leave for 9–10 months after the
accident, and that he did not receive salary for that period;
however, again, he produces no documentary proof (leave
record, wage register, certificate from employer).
(c) Consistency with Pleadings and Earlier Version
Date, time, place and vehicles involved:
54. On these basics — accident dated 27.12.2022, time
about 16:30 hrs, place near Shiv Society, Borivali (W),
involvement of car MH-12-JC-5205 and motorcycle MH-47-
AX-3566 — his affidavit is consistent with the pleadings and
supported by the documents he has produced (GD entry, his
statement, insurance policy, medical records). A minor
variation between “near shop No.2” in the application and
-- 25 of 91 --
26 MACP No.326/2023[J]
“near shop No.4” in the affidavit appears to be trivial and
not of much significance by itself.
Manner of accident / negligence:
55. The pleadings and affidavit both assert that he was
riding the motorcycle at slow speed when the car came in
rashly and dashed the motorcycle. The later shift in cross-
examination to “I was not riding, I was only pillion and do
not know the rider’s name” is a major inconsistency vis-à-vis
his original case. This affects:
56. His credibility on the role of the motorcycle and its
rider, and
57. The weight to be attached to his oral testimony on
negligence.
58. To that extent, his evidence on the precise manner of
collision and attribution of negligence must be viewed with
caution and tested against independent material (police
papers at Exh.25, 26, spot particulars, if any).
Injuries and treatment:
59. The injuries pleaded (left tibia/fibula fracture,
operation, hospitalisation at Shatabdi) are fully reiterated
in the affidavit and corroborated by contemporaneous
medical documents (MLC, discharge card, OPD papers at
Exh.30). The cross-examination suggestion that he was not
admitted is squarely denied, and in the absence of contrary
-- 26 of 91 --
27 MACP No.326/2023[J]
medical material, his version on occurrence of the accident
and its resulting orthopedic injury bears substantial
corroboration from documents and appears reliable.
Income, loss of earnings and disability:
60. Pleadings and affidavit uniformly claim an income of
20,000–20,700 per month and non-working period of 8–9	₹
months, but no independent proof of employment or salary
is produced.
61. Disability is pleaded and spoken to (56% as per
certificate), and the certificate is said to be produced.
However, his admission that he is not presently under
treatment and has not been treated by Dr. Khanna (only
examined for disability) slightly tempers the force of his
assertion about ongoing suffering and future treatment
costs. The nature of bony injury and operative treatment is,
however, consistent with some degree of lasting disability
or functional limitation.
(d) Overall Reliability and Corroboration
62. From the above, the evidence of AW-1 can be
appreciated as follows:
1. On occurrence of accident and involvement of the car:
His version that an accident occurred on 27.12.2022,
involving him and car MH-12-JC-5205, resulting in
significant leg injury and hospitalisation, is substantially
corroborated by:
-- 27 of 91 --
28 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Station/General Diary entry and his statement (Exh.25, 26),
Insurance policy of the car (Exh.27), and
Medical papers from Shatabdi Hospital (Exh.30).
On this limited aspect — that there was a motor accident
involving the said car and that he sustained fracture injuries
— his evidence appears consistent and reliable.
2. On negligence and role of the motorcycle:
Due to the material contradiction between his
pleading/affidavit (“I was riding the motorcycle”) and his
cross-examination (“I was not riding, I was pillion and do
not know rider’s name”), his testimony on the exact manner
of accident and attribution of fault suffers from serious
infirmity.
This weakens the probative value of his evidence on who
was negligent and to what extent.
For deciding Issue on negligence / contributory negligence,
the Tribunal would be justified in placing greater weight on
objective material such as police papers, spot particulars,
and any other independent evidence, rather than treating
AW-1’s oral account as wholly reliable.
3. On injuries, treatment and medical expenditure:
His evidence regarding fracture of left tibia/fibula,
operation, hospitalisation at Shatabdi and subsequent
treatment is amply supported by the medical documents he
has produced. Some bills are in the wife’s name and
prescriptions are not filed, which means the entire claimed
amount under medical expenses may not be accepted at
face value, but the core fact of serious orthopedic injury and
hospitalisation is well corroborated.
-- 28 of 91 --
29 MACP No.326/2023[J]
4. On income and loss of earnings:
His oral assertion of 20,000/- p.m. income and 8–9	₹
months’ loss of salary remains unsupported by any
documentary proof. His long tenure at the petrol pump
since 2004 lends some plausibility to his employment claim,
but not the exact quantum of salary or duration of unpaid
leave. Therefore:
His testimony on employment may be accepted in principle;
The exact income and quantum of loss will require either
independent proof or else reasonable estimation / notional
income.
5. On disability and future loss:
Subject to the contents of the disability certificate and
deposition of the doctor (if examined), his evidence
indicates persistent pain and functional restriction.
However, the absence of ongoing treatment and his
admission that he has not taken treatment from the
certifying doctor would require the Tribunal to evaluate the
disability scientifically on the strength of medical evidence,
rather than relying solely on his subjective assertions.
In sum, AW-1 is substantially reliable to prove that he
sustained fracture injuries in a motor accident involving car
MH-12-JC-5205 on 27.12.2022 and underwent hospital
treatment, but his evidence on exact manner of accident,
negligence, and precise income and loss is partly unreliable
and requires cautious appreciation and corroboration from
independent documents and other evidence.
Appreciation of Evidence of AW-2 – Dr. Naresh Khanna
(Disability)
63. The applicant has examined Dr. Naresh Madanlal
-- 29 of 91 --
30 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Khanna, Orthopaedic Surgeon, as AW-2, who has filed his
affidavit (Exh.31) and proved the disability certificate
(Exh.32).
(a) Substance of Examination-in-Chief
64. AW-2 states that he is M.S. (Orthopaedics) and has
been in practice since 1984. On 20.01.2024 he examined
the applicant, Ramshankar Harihar Vishwakarma, aged
about 40 years, who gave history of vehicular accident on
27.12.2022. According to AW-2, the applicant was admitted
in Shatabdi Municipal Hospital from 27.12.2022 to
16.01.2023. He perused the hospital papers shown to him
and noted the following injury:
Left tibia/fibula fracture – ORIF done, with blunt injury to
the left leg.
On clinical and radiological examination on 20.01.2024,
AW-2 found:
Tenderness, deformity and scarring of the left leg,
Painful and restricted movements of the left knee and
ankle,
Inability to perform day-to-day activities,
Inability to squat, climb stairs, stand or walk for long,
Need for observation, physiotherapy and implant removal
surgery.
65. On this basis, AW-2 opines that the disabilities are
-- 30 of 91 --
31 MACP No.326/2023[J]
permanent and sequelae of the vehicular accident and
assesses permanent partial physical disability at 56% of the
left lower limb. He explains that even if the bone unites,
power and function do not return to normal, and disability
persists in the form of pain, restriction and difficulty in
activities of daily living. He further opines that the applicant
“compulsorily” needs implant removal surgery, the cost of
which he estimates at around 80,000/-, and that the	₹
disabilities will not diminish with time, physiotherapy or
surgery.
66. In Court, AW-2 confirms that Exh.32 is the disability
certificate issued by him in his own handwriting, bearing
his signature and stamp, with the applicant’s photograph
affixed. He reiterates that the 56% disability is only of the
injured body part, i.e. left lower limb.
(b) Cross-Examination – Limitations and Admissions
In cross-examination, AW-2 makes several significant
admissions:
1. Not a treating doctor / one-time assessor only.
He candidly admits that he is not attached to Shatabdi
Hospital and has never treated the applicant medically. He
states that he has not produced any document to show that
he was a treating doctor and that he has not met or seen
the applicant before or after issuance of the disability
certificate; he is unaware of the present physical condition
of the applicant. He has not maintained separate notes of
examination and is deposing essentially on the basis of the
-- 31 of 91 --
32 MACP No.326/2023[J]
photocopy of the disability certificate.
2. Lack of contemporaneous records / methodology on
paper
He admits that he has not mentioned the formula,
guidelines or method of disability assessment in Exh.32 and
does not maintain any register of disability certificates
issued by him. He has not produced any receipt of his
professional fees or any record showing examination of the
applicant radiologically or clinically, apart from the
certificate itself. He agrees that he has not given any
bifurcation of the 56% disability in the certificate. He also
admits that the certificate does not mention the full address
of the patient, and no document is produced to show any
authorisation by any Government body to issue disability
certificates, though he asserts that as an orthopaedic
surgeon and a member of the Bombay Orthopaedic Society
he is so authorised (no documentary proof of such
authorisation is produced).
3. Nature of assessment
67. He denies the suggestions that he issued the
certificate without examining the patient or relying only on
pleadings, and states that he examined the applicant
clinically and radiologically, though no separate
radiological report from him is on record. He clarifies that
CT scan is not necessary for fracture disability assessment
and states that he has referred to the Book of Disabilities by
ALEMCO while assessing 56%. He admits he is appearing in
several accident claim petitions as a witness on disability.
-- 32 of 91 --
33 MACP No.326/2023[J]
4. Current condition and future treatment
68. AW-2 explicitly states that he has not examined the
applicant after 20.01.2024 and therefore does not know the
present physical condition. He has not produced any
written advice to the applicant regarding implant removal,
though he maintains that such surgery is compulsory and
reiterates his estimate of 80,000/-.	₹
(c) Consistency and Corroboration with Applicant’s Case
69. When AW-2’s testimony is compared with the
pleadings and evidence of AW-1 (applicant) and the
medical documents:
1. Accident, injury and treatment
AW-2’s history of vehicular accident on 27.12.2022,
admission at Shatabdi Hospital from 27.12.2022 to
16.01.2023, and the injury of left tibia/fibula fracture
(ORIF done) is fully consistent with:
The applicant’s pleadings and claim affidavit (Exh.23), and
The hospital records (MLC, discharge card, OPD papers at
Exh.30) and other medical papers produced.
Thus, on the nature of injury, treatment and the fact that
there was operative management of a fracture of the left
leg, AW-2’s evidence is well corroborated by
contemporaneous medical records and AW-1’s testimony.
2. Symptomatology and functional complaints
-- 33 of 91 --
34 MACP No.326/2023[J]
70. The findings recorded by AW-2 – pain, deformity,
scarring, restricted movements, difficulty in squatting,
climbing stairs, standing and walking long – are
substantially in line with the complaints stated by AW-1
(difficulty in walking, limp, inability to run, difficulty
climbing stairs). On this aspect, there is no inconsistency
between AW-1 and AW-2; rather, AW-2 provides a medical
explanation for the functional complaints.
3. Extent and nature of disability
71. AW-1 in his affidavit states that his permanent partial
disability is assessed at 56% and relies on Dr. Khanna’s
certificate. AW-2 confirms that he has assessed 56%
permanent partial disability of the left lower limb, not
whole body. Thus, as between AW-1 and AW-2, there is
internal consistency on the percentage and localisation of
disability.
4. Future surgery and expenses
72. AW-1 states he “needs another surgery for implant
removal” and estimates the cost at about 50,000/-; AW-2	₹
opines that implant removal surgery is compulsory, with an
estimated cost of 80,000/-. There is therefore general	₹
corroboration on the need for implant removal, though the
exact cost figure differs and is not supported by any written
estimate or hospital quotation.
-- 34 of 91 --
35 MACP No.326/2023[J]
(d) Reliability and Weight of AW-2’s Evidence
From the totality of the deposition, the following emerges:
1. Medical expertise and basic injury assessment
73. AW-2 is a qualified and experienced orthopaedic
surgeon. His description of the fracture, operative
treatment, and the expected sequelae (pain, restricted
movements, difficulty in squatting and climbing stairs) is
medically plausible and consistent with the nature of injury
and hospital record. His evidence can safely be relied upon
to hold that the applicant has suffered a significant
orthopaedic injury to the left tibia/fibula requiring ORIF
and that some degree of permanent functional restriction of
the left lower limb is likely.
2. Limitations affecting the quantum of disability and future
expenses
74. He is not the treating doctor, saw the applicant only
for disability assessment long after the accident, has no
notes, no independent record, and relies solely on Exh.32.
He admits absence of any register, methodology or
bifurcation in the certificate and that he is unaware of the
applicant’s present condition. He also appears regularly in
claim petitions and there is no governmental authorisation
produced for issuing disability certificates.
75. These factors do not nullify his medical opinion, but
-- 35 of 91 --
36 MACP No.326/2023[J]
they reduce the weight that can be attached to his precise
figure of 56% PPD and to his assertion that implant removal
surgery is “compulsory” with a fixed cost of 80,000/-.	₹
Those aspects therefore require some moderation and
judicial assessment, rather than blind acceptance.
3. Corroborative, not conclusive
76. In the circumstances, AW-2’s testimony is best viewed
as corroborative expert evidence confirming that:
The applicant sustained serious fracture injury to the left
leg. There is permanent residual impairment of the left
lower limb, and the applicant will have difficulty in
strenuous activities like squatting, running, climbing stairs,
prolonged standing/walking. The exact percentage of
disability for the purpose of loss of earning capacity and the
quantum of future medical expenses must, however, be
assessed by the Tribunal keeping in view:
the nature of work of the applicant,
the contents of the disability certificate,
AW-1’s own evidence of present functioning, and
the absence of treating doctor’s testimony or detailed
methodology from AW-2.
77. In sum, AW-2 is a reliable expert witness to the extent
of confirming the existence of permanent physical disability
of the left lower limb consequent to the fracture, but his
assessment of 56% disability and the projected cost of
-- 36 of 91 --
37 MACP No.326/2023[J]
future surgery must be used as guiding, not decisive,
figures, to be suitably calibrated while determining
functional disability and quantum of compensation.
Appreciation of Evidence of DW-1 – Driver of the Offending
Car
78. The insurer has examined Akshay Tukaram Kurade as
DW-1, the driver of motor car No. MH-12-JC-5205 at the
relevant time.
(a) Substance of Examination-in-Chief
79. DW-1 states that he is working as a driver/vehicle
associate for M/s B.G. Shirke Construction Tech Pvt. Ltd.,
the registered owner, and was deputed through a
contractor. He confirms that he has been in that
employment since 07.09.2022, and that on 27.12.2022 he
was driving car MH-12-JC-5205 of the company.
80. He proves his driving licence No. MH09 2015
0009655 (Exh.38), the insurance policy of car MH-12-JC-
5205 issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (Exh.39), and
the RC book of the said car (Exh.40). The contents and
genuineness of these have been admitted on behalf of the
applicant. These documents corroborate the insurer’s and
owner’s case that:
the vehicle involved was Maruti Swift Dzire MH-12-JC-
5205,
-- 37 of 91 --
38 MACP No.326/2023[J]
it stood registered in the name of opponent No.1, and
it was duly insured with opponent No.2 on the date of
accident,
DW-1 held a valid and effective driving licence.
81. As regards the manner of accident, DW-1 deposes that
on the date of the incident he was driving the car from
Borivali towards Kandivali on Pawandham Road. Near
Chikuwadi traffic signal, he turned left towards Kandivali
and, having reached the next square, intended to go
straight. He states that a two-wheeler then tried to overtake
his car from the left side in undue haste and dashed the left
front portion (near the front wheel) of his car while
attempting to proceed ahead. He further states that the
two-wheeler was ridden triple seat, and its rider was not
wearing a helmet. According to him, he was driving at
moderate, permissible speed, with due care and proper
lookout, and the accident was caused solely due to rash and
negligent overtaking from the left by the motorcycle rider.
82. He states that his car suffered damage to the panel
above the left front wheel, the left-side headlight and
bumper, and the bonnet.
83. He says he then took the car to the side, made
inquiries about the police station, went to Borivali Police
Station and reported the incident. According to him, police
-- 38 of 91 --
39 MACP No.326/2023[J]
inspected the damage and made a station/traffic diary
entry. He claims he informed the police that no one was
injured, and that thereafter he was never called again for
inquiry, no notice or letter was served, and no offence was
registered against him.
84. He produces a certified copy of Station Diary Entry
No.1 (Exh.42), which he says is based on his narration and
records the incident.
85. He squarely asserts that there was no negligence on
his part, and the incident occurred due to the sole
negligence of the motorcycle rider overtaking from the
wrong side.
(b) Cross-Examination – Reliability, Gaps and Admissions
In cross-examination, several important aspects emerge:
1. Employment and authority to depose
86. He admits he is still in the service of opponent No.1
and that he has been instructed by company officials to
appear and depose. However, he has no written authority
letter from the company authorising him to represent it
before the Tribunal. He admits that the company conducted
an internal inquiry into the accident “at his hands”, but no
written report of the inquiry was prepared. He denies the
suggestion that findings were adverse to him, but the
absence of any written record makes verification
-- 39 of 91 --
40 MACP No.326/2023[J]
impossible. These factors show he is an interested witness
(employee) and his evidence must be weighed with that in
mind.
2. Road layout and relative positions
87. He admits the road had two lanes, with a divider
between the two directions, and that both he and the two-
wheeler were travelling in the same direction. He states he
saw the two-wheeler in the side mirror, coming from
behind. This admission shows that the presence of the
motorcycle was within his knowledge before impact. He
denies the suggestion that he changed lane towards the left
and thus caused the accident.
3. Station Diary Entry – Date and contents :
88. When confronted with Station Diary Entry Exh.42, he
admits that there is no reference in that entry to any two-
wheeler or its registration number. The entry produced is
recorded as No.1 dated 26.12.2022 at 01:00 hours, whereas
the accident alleged by the applicant is on 27.12.2022
around 16:30 hrs. He denies that the entry is unrelated and
insists it relates to the incident he reported, but he cannot
explain the mismatch of date and the absence of specific
two-wheeler details in the entry. The entry does not bear
his clear signature as driver; he volunteers that police
obtained his signature in their diary and that his separate
statement was not recorded. This discrepancy in date
-- 40 of 91 --
41 MACP No.326/2023[J]
(26.12.2022 vs 27.12.2022) and the silence of Exh.42
about the two-wheeler severely weakens the evidentiary
value of Exh.42 as corroboration of his version of the
accident.
4. Injuries and damage :
89. He insists that no one was injured in the accident, and
denies the suggestion that the two-wheeler rider sustained
fracture of the left leg. This is directly contrary to the
medical records and the consistent case of the applicant
that he sustained fracture of left tibia/fibula, ORIF and
hospitalisation at Shatabdi. In the face of contemporaneous
medical evidence and hospital records, DW-1’s assertion of
“no injuries” appears incorrect and unreliable on this
aspect.
5. Helmet, triple-seat etc. :
90. He states that the two-wheeler was being driven triple
seat, and that the rider was not wearing a helmet. No
independent document (police paper, panchnama, etc.)
mentioning triple-seat or no helmet is produced. Even
Exh.42, pressed as supporting document, does not contain
such particulars. These allegations therefore remain
uncorroborated oral assertions, and appear designed to
strengthen the defence of sole negligence/contributory
negligence.
(c) Consistency with Insurer’s Pleadings and Other Evidence
-- 41 of 91 --
42 MACP No.326/2023[J]
91. DW-1’s version aligns with the insurer’s pleadings
that:
the accident was caused due to the sole negligence of the
motorcycle rider, the motorcycle was coming at high speed,
attempted to overtake from the left, and the car driver
(DW-1) was driving at a moderate speed with due care. His
evidence also supports the insurer’s defence that the car
was:
duly insured with opponent No.2 (Exh.39),
owned by opponent No.1 (Exh.40), and driven by a person
having a valid and effective driving licence (Exh.38).
92. However, when DW-1’s testimony is juxtaposed with:
AW-1’s evidence and the medical and hospital records,
there are serious conflicts:
AW-1 and the documents clearly show fracture injury and
hospitalisation, whereas DW-1 insists that no person
suffered injury and he told the police so.
The applicant’s case is that the car came at high speed from
the left and dashed the motorcycle, whereas DW-1 claims
the motorcycle overtook from the left and dashed the
stationary/properly driven car.
The Station Diary Entry produced by DW-1 (Exh.42) is
dated 26.12.2022 and does not refer to any two-wheeler,
creating a serious doubt as to whether it relates to the
accident in question at all.
-- 42 of 91 --
43 MACP No.326/2023[J]
(d) Overall Reliability and Probative Value
93. On an overall appreciation, the evidence of DW-1 may
be assessed as follows:
1. On status, ownership, insurance and licence :
94. His testimony regarding his status as driver, the
ownership of the car by opponent No.1, the valid insurance
policy with opponent No.2, and the existence of a valid
driving licence is well supported by Exh.38–40 and is
reliable. To this limited extent, his evidence is credible and
corroborates the insurer’s and owner’s basic defences
regarding compliance with policy conditions.
2. On occurrence and manner of accident :
95. That a collision occurred between car MH-12-JC-5205
and a two-wheeler is consistent with both sides. However,
DW-1’s version as to how it occurred (two-wheeler
overtaking from left, triple seat, no helmet, no injuries) is
poorly supported:
96. The Station Diary Entry Exh.42 does not match the
date of the accident pleaded and proved by the applicant
and has no reference to the two-wheeler, his statement that
no one was injured stands squarely belied by hospital
records and disability evidence, Allegations of triple seat
and no helmet are uncorroborated by any independent
material.
-- 43 of 91 --
44 MACP No.326/2023[J]
97. In these circumstances, his evidence on negligence
and the manner of accident is not fully reliable and must be
viewed with considerable caution. It cannot, by itself,
displace the documentary medical evidence and the fact of
serious injury.
3. On contributory / sole negligence
98. DW-1’s evidence does support the defence theory of
negligence on the part of the motorcyclist, and may be
considered while evaluating Issue on contributory
negligence.
99. However, given the date discrepancy in Exh.42, his
interest as an employee of the owner, absence of
independent police corroboration of his detailed version,
and his demonstrably incorrect assertion about absence of
injury, his testimony cannot be accepted wholesale to
conclude sole negligence of the motorcycle rider.
100. At best, his version can be treated as a self-serving
explanation, to be weighed along with AW-1’s evidence,
police/other papers (TAR/TAD, if correctly proved) and the
probabilities of the case while apportioning negligence, if
any.
101. In sum, DW-1 is a reliable witness to establish that he
was the authorised driver of a duly insured car owned by
-- 44 of 91 --
45 MACP No.326/2023[J]
opponent No.1, but his evidence on the manner of accident,
absence of injuries, and exclusive negligence of the
motorcycle rider is only partially credible, substantially
uncorroborated, and in some respects contradicted by
contemporaneous documentary and medical evidence, and
therefore cannot be implicitly relied upon without
independent support.
Appreciation of Documentary Evidence Produced by
Applicant
102. The applicant has relied upon several documents
under Lists at Exh.21, 22, 24 and the original list filed with
the application. Broadly, they fall into four groups:
1. Police / General Diary documents
2. Medical records (MLC, indoor case papers, OPD papers,
discharge card)
3. Medical bills and expenses
4. Identity / other documents (Aadhaar, insurance policy
copy, etc.)
1. Police Documents – General Diary Details & Statement
(a) General Diary Details – Borivali Police Station (D.D.
No.071, dated 27.12.2022, 22:04 hrs)
103. The certified copy of General Diary Details from
Borivali Police Station shows a medico-legal entry relating
-- 45 of 91 --
46 MACP No.326/2023[J]
to Ramashankar Harihar Vishwakarma, age 39, in
connection with an RTA on 27.12.2022 at about 16:30
hours.
In substance, the entry records that:
104. The applicant, employed at BP Petrol Pump, Kandivali
(W), had finished his duty and was proceeding on
motorcycle MH-47-AX-3566 with his friend Mayuresh
Atake.
105. Near Shop No.2, Shiv Society, Satya Nagar, Borivali
(W), Mumbai, while going towards Borivali Station, a car
bearing No. MH-12-JC-5205 suddenly came from the left
side and came in front of their motorcycle, resulting in a
collision between the left side headlight/bonnet of the car
and the motorcycle.
106. Due to the impact, the applicant fell and sustained
severe pain and fracture above the left ankle.He was taken
by his friend to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Shatabdi Hospital,
Kandivali (W), where he was treated.The applicant
specifically stated that he does not want to lodge any
complaint or register offence and has no
suspicion/complaint against anyone, and that treatment is
ongoing. The entry mentions the registration numbers of
both vehicles and notes this as a medico-legal incident.
Consistency & Reliability:
-- 46 of 91 --
47 MACP No.326/2023[J]
107. This document is a certified copy from a government
authority and hence carries good evidentiary value. It is
substantially consistent with:
The pleadings in Exh.1 and the applicant’s claim affidavit
(Exh.23) regarding:
Date and time of accident (27.12.2022 around 16:30
hours),
Place (near Shiv Society, Satya Nagar, Borivali (W)),
Vehicles involved (bike MH-47-AX-3566 and car MH-12-JC-
5205),
The manner of accident: car suddenly coming from the left
and dashing the motorcycle,
Nature of resultant injury to left leg and treatment at
Shatabdi Hospital, and
Reason why no FIR was lodged (driver apologised /
humanitarian approach).
It directly contradicts DW-1’s assertion that:
No one was injured, and
He merely reported a minor damage incident.
108. It also exposes the weakness of the insurer/owner’s
reliance on Station Diary entry dated 26.12.2022 (Exh.42),
since here we have a clear, dated entry of 27.12.2022
-- 47 of 91 --
48 MACP No.326/2023[J]
naming the applicant, both vehicle numbers, and recording
injuries and hospitalisation.
Conclusion: The General Diary Details and the recorded
statement of the applicant are credible, contemporaneous
documents and strongly corroborate the applicant’s version
of accident, vehicle involvement and immediate medical
treatment.
2. Medical Records – Shatabdi Municipal Hospital & OPD
Papers
109. The applicant has filed original/certified medical
documents under Exh.24 and earlier list:
Casualty/MLC papers of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Shatabdi
Hospital, Kandivali
Indoor case card – admission and discharge details
Continuation sheets and OPD follow-up cards
Investigation / treatment entries from Orthopaedic
department
Key Features of Medical Records:
1. Casualty & MLC:
110. Casualty sheet dated 27.12.2022 records an RTA
(road traffic accident).
History: RTA, fall from bike, pain and swelling in left leg,
wound over left leg.
Clinical findings:
-- 48 of 91 --
49 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Tenderness and swelling over left leg,
Restricted range of movement,
Wound over medial aspect near the ankle region.
X-ray report notes fracture of shaft of left tibia/fibula.
Treatment advised: wound wash, splintage, pain
management, tetanus, etc.
Case is clearly marked as Medico-Legal Case (MLC).
2. Indoor/Discharge:
111. Indoor card shows admission on 27.12.2022 and
discharge in January 2023 (the card appears to mention
10.01.2023; the affidavit mentions treatment up to
16.01.2023, indicating continuation of follow-up).
Diagnosis: Fracture of left tibia/fibula – ORIF (Open
Reduction and Internal Fixation) with plating performed.
Operative notes (brief) and postoperative instructions are
recorded, including physiotherapy and follow-up advice.
3. OPD Follow-up Sheets:
112. Multiple OPD entries show follow-up visits in early
2023 with complaints of pain, need for elevation, crepe
bandage, calcium supplementation, analgesics, etc. X-rays
showing “implant in situ” are noted, with advice regarding
limb use and further follow-up.
-- 49 of 91 --
50 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Consistency with Pleadings and AW-1 / AW-2:
These hospital documents are fully consistent with:
113. The applicant’s pleadings and affidavit that he
suffered left tibia/fibula fracture (ORIF done) and was
admitted in Shatabdi Hospital from 27.12.2022 for about
2–3 weeks.
AW-1’s evidence (Exh.23) as to:
Nature of injury,
Date and place of treatment, and
Persistent pain and limitations afterwards.
114. AW-2 Dr. Naresh Khanna’s testimony (Exh.31 & 32),
who has based his disability assessment on the same
Shatabdi papers and confirms left tibia/fibula fracture,
ORIF, scarring, restricted movements.
Minor Discrepancies:
115. There is a small discrepancy in the discharge date:
AW-1’s affidavit mentions admission till 16.01.2023, while
the indoor card appears to show discharge around
10.01.2023, with later OPD follow-up. This is minor and
explained by continued OPD visits; it does not affect
substantive credibility.
-- 50 of 91 --
51 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Conclusion:
The medical records are contemporaneous, institutional
documents from a Municipal General Hospital, and they
strongly corroborate the applicant’s case regarding:
The fact of accident, the nature and seriousness of injuries
(fracture left tibia/fibula requiring surgery), the duration of
hospitalisation, and ongoing complaints thereafter. They
also directly falsify DW-1’s plea that no one was injured in
the incident.
3. Medical Bills & Expenses (Exh.22 – List of Medical Bills)
116. Under Exh.22, the applicant has produced a list of
medical bills totalling 10,890/- on the page shown, with:	₹
Bills from Getwell Chemist, Rishabh Chemist, Shatabdi
Chemist, Galaxy Healthcare, Meghdhara / radiology,
Mahanand / other medical stores, etc.,
Dates mostly in the period 27.12.2022 to April 2023,
Amounts corresponding to medicines, investigations and
hospital payments.
In cross-examination, AW-1 admits:
117. One chemist bill is issued in the name of his wife
Anita, not in his own name, and he explains that she
purchased medicines for him.
118. Prescriptions corresponding to some bills are not on
record, though hospital case papers and treatment entries
-- 51 of 91 --
52 MACP No.326/2023[J]
are present.
Consistency & Reliability:
119. The bills are chronologically aligned with the accident
and treatment period and broadly match the timeline of
hospitalisation and OPD follow-up. Though some bills are
not in the applicant’s own name and prescription copies are
not meticulously filed for each bill, the overall pattern of
expenditure is consistent with the type and duration of
treatment shown in hospital records.
120. Given the modest total shown ( 10,890 on the page,	₹
possibly more on other pages), there is no indication of
inflation or exaggeration; if anything, the claimed amount
appears conservative for fracture surgery and subsequent
OPD treatment.
Conclusion:
The medical bills, read with the hospital records, are
reasonably reliable to support a claim for actual medical
expenses broadly in the range claimed by the applicant.
Minor defects (bill in wife’s name, absence of some
prescriptions) affect only the degree of strict proof, not the
bona fides of the expenditure.
4. Identity & Other Documents – Aadhaar, Insurance Policy
Copy, etc.
Aadhaar Card of Applicant:
Aadhaar of “Ramashankar Harihar Vishwakarma” shows:
-- 52 of 91 --
53 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Date of Birth: 11.11.1981 (corresponds to age 39 on date of
accident),
Sex: Male,
Address in UP – Sant Ravidas Nagar, same as pleaded in the
application.
This corroborates his age and identity as pleaded in Exh.1
and sworn in Exh.23.
Copy of Insurance Policy of Offending Vehicle:
121. The applicant has also produced a copy of the
insurance policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for
car MH-12-JC-5205 for the period 01.10.2022 to
30.09.2023, which is the same policy relied upon and
proved from the insurer’s side (Exh.39).
122. This confirms that on the date of accident
(27.12.2022), Opponent No.1 was the registered owner,
Opponent No.2 was the insurer, and the policy was valid
and in force.
This document is fully consistent with:
The applicant’s pleadings under para 11 & 15,
The written statement of the owner and insurer, and
DW-1’s evidence with Exh.39–40.
-- 53 of 91 --
54 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Conclusion:
These documents solidly establish the applicant’s identity
and age and undisputedly fix the insurer’s contractual
liability, subject to any statutory defences.
Overall Assessment of Applicant’s Documentary Evidence
1. The police GD entry and recorded statement provide
independent, contemporaneous corroboration of the
applicant’s version on date, time, place, vehicles involved
and injury, and are inconsistent with DW-1’s “no injury”
theory.
2. The hospital records from Shatabdi Municipal Hospital
are detailed, consistent and contemporaneous, and they
fully support the applicant’s claim of serious fracture injury
of the left tibia/fibula with ORIF and subsequent disability.
3. The medical bills align with the treatment timeline and
quantum of treatment and reasonably support the claim for
medical expenses, subject to modest scrutiny for a few bills.
4. Aadhaar and insurance policy copies corroborate the
applicant’s age/identity and the existence of valid insurance
coverage of the offending car.
123. Taken together, the applicant’s documents are largely
consistent with his pleadings and oral evidence (AW-1 and
AW-2), and more reliable than the defence attempt to
minimise or deny injury. They provide a credible
documentary base for findings on occurrence of accident,
involvement of the offending vehicle, nature and
seriousness of injuries, treatment, and entitlement to
compensation.
Appreciation of the documents produced by the insurer /
owner, with emphasis on how far they support their stand
and how they compare with other evidence.
-- 54 of 91 --
55 MACP No.326/2023[J]
1. Station Diary / TAD–TAR Entry – Borivali Police Station
(Exh.36 & 42)
(a) Akshay Kurade’s Application for Certified Copy
(09.10.2025)
Driver Akshay Tukaram Kurade (DW-1) applied to the
Senior Police Inspector, Borivali Police Station requesting a
certified copy of TAD No.01/22 and TAR No.157/22,
stating:
He was driving car MH-12-JC-5205 on 29.12.2022 (he
mentions 29.12.2022 in the letter).
Some “accident incident” occurred and he had “registered”
the incident as TAD/01/22 and TAR/157/22.
The original copy with him was lost, so he needed a
certified copy.
Significance & Reliability:
124. This is not contemporaneous with the accident; it is
dated 09.10.2025, almost three years later and after the
MACT proceedings were underway. It shows that DW-1
actively sought out and produced the TAD/TAR entry to
support the defence. It does not by itself prove how the
accident occurred; it only shows subsequent conduct and
that the TAD/TAR entries exist.
(b) Station Diary / TAD No.01/22 – TAR No.157/22
(Borivali P.S., 26.12.2022)
The certified copy of the Station Diary Entry (Exh.42) under
-- 55 of 91 --
56 MACP No.326/2023[J]
TAD No.01/2022, TAR No.157/2022 records:
It is a non-injury, property damage report.
Informant:
Akshay Tukaram Kurade, 27 years, driver, residing at Amol
Patil Chawl, New Link Road, Renuka Nagar,
Dahanukarwadi, Kandivali (W), Mumbai, mobile 84080
96788. Vehicle in his possession: car MH-12-JC-5205
(Maruti Swift Dzire).
Alleged occurrence: Date: 27.12.2022, about 17:00 hours.
Place: near Bhagwati Hotel, Shivani Society / Satya Nagar,
Borivali (W), on southbound flank towards Kandivali.
125. While his car was going towards Kandivali, an
unknown four-wheeler coming from behind attempted to
overtake and came into the left side of his car, dashing the
left side and causing damage.
Damage noted:
Damage to bonnet,
Damage to headlight and bumper,
Damage to panel above left front wheel (i.e. front left side).
The entry then sets out the vehicle details:
Owner: M/s B.G. Shirke Construction Tech Pvt. Ltd.,
Driver’s licence no. MH09 20150009655, valid up to
06.03.2035,
Policy no. 15040531220100000811, valid 01.10.2022 –
30.09.2023,
-- 56 of 91 --
57 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Chassis & engine numbers matching Exh.39–40.
The diary specifically notes:
It is an accident causing damage only, No one is injured, no
offence is registered. The incident is recorded as TAD
01/22, TAR 157/22, and “tapas band” (inquiry closed) after
informing superiors.
How far does this support the insurer’s case?
It does support the following defence aspects:
126. The car MH-12-JC-5205 was indeed involved in some
accident at the same time and place as pleaded by both
sides. There was damage to the front left portion of the car,
consistent with DW-1’s description in his evidence. It
records that no injuries were reported to the police in that
property-damage report. It confirms that the car was validly
insured and driven by a licensed driver at the time.
However, on the manner of accident, it diverges from the
oral defence and from the applicant’s version:
127. The diary entry attributes the “dash” to an unknown
motor car overtaking from behind, Whereas the applicant
says his two-wheeler was hit by this insured car. And in
DW-1’s oral deposition, he says that a two-wheeler overtook
him and dashed his car, not that another car hit him. Thus,
DW-1’s oral version and the TAD entry are not identical.
The TAD entry talks of an unknown car; DW-1 talks of a
two-wheeler with triple-seat.
-- 57 of 91 --
58 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Consistency with insurer’s written statement:
The insurer’s written statement takes the line that:
There is no negligence of the car driver, the accident is
entirely due to the motorcycle rider’s negligence,
No proper proof of involvement or negligence of the car
driver.
128. The TAD entry:
Supports “no negligence / no injury” indirectly, because it
records only vehicle damage and no injured person and no
offence.
But it does not support the specific allegation that the
motorcycle rider alone is negligent; it instead introduces an
“unknown car” overtaking and hitting MH-12-JC-5205.
129. Consistency with applicant’s documents:
Applicant’s GD entry of 27.12.2022 (medico-legal case)
recites that:
The applicant on motorcycle MH-47-AX-3566 collided with
car MH-12-JC-5205 and he suffered fracture to the left leg,
he was treated at Shatabdi Hospital, he chose not to lodge a
criminal complaint. Thus, we have two parallel station diary
records:
One (TAD/TAR) as property damage, no injury, from the
driver’s side.
One as medico-legal injury, from the applicant’s side, on the
same date, at almost the same place involving the same car.
-- 58 of 91 --
59 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Both can coexist (police often keep separate entries for
medico-legal case and for property damage / NCR), but
they clearly show that:
The accident did occur, The same car is involved, The
driver’s report omits any injury, while the hospital/MLC and
applicant’s entry record clear injury and fracture.
130. Reliability Assessment:
The TAD/TAR entry is a contemporaneous police record, so
it has evidentiary value, but:
It is based solely on DW-1’s information and reflects only
vehicle damage from his perspective.
It is silent about any injured motorcyclist, which is
inconsistent with the hospital records and medico-legal
entry.
131. DW-1’s oral version (two-wheeler overtaking his car)
is not exactly the same as the diary narrative (unknown car
overtaking and hitting his car), which somewhat weakens
the probative value of the TAD entry in fully supporting his
story.
132. Overall, the TAD/TAR entry supports the defence only
partially (existence of accident, car damage, licence and
insurance, no police case registered against driver), but
does not dislodge the applicant’s version regarding injury
and car involvement, which is supported by independent
medical and GD/MLC records.
-- 59 of 91 --
60 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Insurance Policy, RC Book and Driving Licence (Earlier
Exhibits 38–40)
Though formally produced under owner’s list Exh.20, these
are also relied upon by the insurer:
1. Driving Licence (DL) of DW-1 – Exh.38
DL No. MH09 20150009655,
Valid up to 06.03.2035 (NT),
Shows DW-1 is licensed to drive LMV / motor car.
2. Insurance Policy – Exh.39
Policy No. 15040531220100000811,
Issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Vehicle: Maruti Swift Dzire MH-12-JC-5205,
Period: 01.10.2022 – 30.09.2023, i.e. covers the date of
accident 27.12.2022.
3. RC Book – Exh.40
Registration No. MH-12-JC-5205,
Owner: M/s B.G. Shirke Construction Tech Pvt. Ltd.,
Vehicle: Maruti Swift Dzire, year of manufacture 2012.
133. Consistency & Reliability:
-- 60 of 91 --
61 MACP No.326/2023[J]
These documents are standard statutory documents, and
there is no challenge by the applicant; they are admitted.
They fully corroborate the insurer’s and owner’s pleadings
regarding:
Ownership of the car by Opponent No.1, Existence and
validity of the insurance with Opponent No.2 on the
relevant date and DW-1’s valid driving licence.
They are internally consistent and also match the details
recited in the TAD/TAR entry, and even in the applicant’s
own list (copy of insurance policy).
134. Effect on the case:
These documents negate any defence of “no insurance” or
“no valid licence” and thus restrict the insurer to statutory
defences under Section 149(2) M.V. Act.
They do not, however, address negligence, occurrence, or
extent of injury; they are neutral on those points.
3. Overall Appreciation of Insurer’s Documents
Putting all insurer-side documents together:
1. They strongly establish:
The identity of the vehicle (MH-12-JC-5205),
Ownership in the name of M/s B.G. Shirke Const. Tech. Pvt.
Ltd.,
Valid insurance policy with New India Assurance on the
date of accident,
-- 61 of 91 --
62 MACP No.326/2023[J]
DW-1’s valid and effective driving licence.
That some accident / impact did occur near Bhagwati Hotel
/ Shivani Society / Satya Nagar at the relevant time,
causing damage to the front left part of the car.
2. They partially support the insurer’s narrative that:
There was no criminal case registered against DW-1,
The driver himself reported a non-injury damage incident,
From the driver’s perspective, no injuries were noticed or
reported at the time.
3. They do not, however, fully support:
The insurer’s strict denial of involvement of the car –
because their own documents (TAD, policy, RC) clearly
accept such involvement.
The insurer’s specific allegation of sole negligence of
motorcycle rider, since the TAD entry speaks of an
unknown car overtaking and dashing MH-12-JC-5205, not a
bike; and DW-1 orally shifts to a two-wheeler overtaking
and hitting his car.
The insurer’s suggestion that the claim is bogus / no injury,
because the hospital records, medico-legal entry and
disability evidence from the applicant’s side are more
detailed, consistent, and objective, and the TAD entry’s
silence about injury is not conclusive.
4. Internal consistency issues on defence side:
TAD entry: accident due to unknown car overtaking from
-- 62 of 91 --
63 MACP No.326/2023[J]
behind.
DW-1 deposition: accident due to two-wheeler with triple-
seat overtaking and hitting his car.
Insurer’s written statement: accident solely due to negligent
motorcycle rider.This progression shows a shifting
narrative, which reduces the weight of the insurer’s
documentary and oral evidence on the manner of accident
and negligence.
Conclusion
The insurer’s documents are reliable and consistent only to
the limited extent of proving:
Existence of valid insurance, Ownership and registration,
Valid licence of DW-1, and
A contemporaneous property-damage entry (TAD) showing
the car was involved in an incident at the relevant time and
place, with no offence registered and no injury mentioned
from driver’s side.
135. They are not sufficient to negate the applicant’s
version of actual collision between the insured car and the
applicant’s motorcycle, Serious fracture injury and
hospitalisation, and Rash/negligent conduct attributable to
the car’s movement, especially when the applicant’s side is
supported by independent medical records, medico-legal
GD entry, and consistent oral deposition.
136. For judgment purposes, I can safely treat the insurer’s
-- 63 of 91 --
64 MACP No.326/2023[J]
documents as limited to foundation facts (insurance,
licence, occurrence of some accident) and give greater
evidentiary weight to the more detailed and consistent
records produced from the applicant’s side on injury and
causation, while duly recording the TAD/TAR entry as part
of the defence narrative.
137. Let’s treat what the insurer has done at Exh.-… as:
“Reply on quantum based on Supreme Court jurisprudence
on disability and compensation.”
None of these rulings help them on negligence /
contributory negligence – they’re all about how to calculate
just compensation in serious injury cases. Most of them
actually support a liberal, structured award for the injured
claimant.
I’ll take them one by one and then tie them back to your
facts (leg fracture, surgery, disability certificate, future
surgery, loss of earning capacity, etc.).
1.
Kavin v. P. Sreemani Devi (2025 SCC 1786),
21-year-old claimant, 100% permanent disability,
vegetative / bed-ridden. Tribunal granted compensation
under many heads:
Medical expenses,
Future medical expenses,
Loss of income,
Future attendant charges,
Loss of enjoyment of life/amenities,
-- 64 of 91 --
65 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Pain & suffering of family members,
Permanent disability.
Hon’ble High Court has reduced:
future medical & attendant charges and completely
removed compensation for:
Loss of enjoyment of life & amenities,
Pain & suffering of family,
Permanent disability.
Supreme Court:
Holds High Court’s reduction unsustainable.
Enhances:
Future medical expenses to 15 lakh,	₹
Attendant charges to 10 lakh (for the rest of life),	₹
Restores amounts for:
Loss of enjoyment/amenities ( 3 lakh),	₹
Pain & suffering of family ( 3 lakh),	₹
Permanent disability (enhanced from 3 lakh to 5 lakh).	₹ ₹
Very important principle:
“Loss of future income” is distinct from “permanent
disability” as a head of compensation.
Non-pecuniary heads (amenities, family’s suffering) cannot
be knocked off without reason.
How it applies to your case (MACP No.326/2023)
Your applicant has serious leg injuries, surgery with
implants, certificate of permanent disability of left lower
limb and need for future surgery (implant removal).
Even though disability is not 100%, Kavin clearly supports:
-- 65 of 91 --
66 MACP No.326/2023[J]
A separate head for future medical expenses (implant
removal, follow-up treatment, physiotherapy).
A separate head for attendant charges (if evidence shows he
needed / will need help for mobility, self-care during
recovery).
Separate non-pecuniary heads:
Pain and suffering,
Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities,
Possibly mental stress / impact on family.
A distinct amount for permanent disability, in addition to
loss of future income.
If insurer argues that once you give “loss of income” you
can’t give “permanent disability” or “amenities”, Kavin is
direct authority against that argument.
2.
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343
Ratio : This is the leading judgment on disability in injury
claims.
Key principles:
1. Physical vs. Functional disability:
Medical certificate usually gives % of limb or whole body
disability.Tribunal must not mechanically treat that
percentage as loss of earning capacity. Instead, it must
assess functional disability:
“what work can he now do, what can he no longer do?”
2. Steps to follow:
Decide:
Is disability permanent or temporary?
If permanent: total or partial?
If % is for a limb, then what is the disability of the whole
-- 66 of 91 --
67 MACP No.326/2023[J]
body?
Then ask:
Has this disability actually reduced his earning capacity?
If so, by what percentage?
3. Calculation:
Assess annual income (reasonable, even if not strictly
proved).
Apply percentage of functional disability, not limb
disability.
Apply multiplier (as in Sarla Verma line of cases). In injury
cases, no deduction of 1/3rd for personal & living expenses.
4. Directions on medical evidence:
Expose and understand medical evidence and clarify
whether % is limb or whole body. If in doubt, can send to
Medical Board.
Application to your case
AW2 (orthopaedic surgeon) has given 56% permanent
disability of left lower limb.
As Per Raj Kumar you cannot treat 56% as 56% economic
loss.
You must decide: What is whole-body disability? (e.g., you
may reason it to be around, say, 20–25% depending on
occupation and movement requirement). Then functional
disability vis-à-vis his actual avocation (e.g., if job requires
standing/walking, the functional loss may be nearer the
limb %; if desk job, lower).
Insurer may rely on Raj Kumar to say: “Don’t mechanically
use 56%.” That is correct as a legal proposition, but it
-- 67 of 91 --
68 MACP No.326/2023[J]
equally requires the Tribunal to make a separate, reasoned
finding of functional disability and loss of earning capacity
(not to ignore disability or minimise it). Not deduct 1/3rd
from income. So, properly applied, Raj Kumar helps you
structure a reasoned, higher quantum with clear reasoning,
not reduce it.
3.
R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1995)
1 SCC 551
Ratio : Classic authority on heads of compensation in
serious injury.
Key points:
1. Pecuniary vs. Non-pecuniary damages:
Pecuniary: medical expenses, loss of earnings, other out-of-
pocket expenses.
Non-pecuniary:
Pain and suffering,
Loss of amenities,
Loss of expectation of life,
Inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, frustration, mental
stress.
2. No exact formula, some guesswork is inevitable, but it
must be done with objective standards and reflect all
relevant circumstances i.e. age, occupation, life situation,
the nature of deprivation.
3. Recognises that no amount can truly restore a broken
body, but the law must compensate “so far as money can”.
Use in your case
-- 68 of 91 --
69 MACP No.326/2023[J]
This judgment gives you the conceptual framework to:
Award distinct amounts for:
Pain and suffering (fracture, surgery, weeks of
hospitalisation and follow-up).
Loss of amenities (difficulty walking, squatting, climbing,
recreational activities).
If evidence shows significant emotional impact, possibly
loss of expectation of a “normal” active life.
Justify reasonable “guesswork” for future medical expenses
and future inconvenience, relying on medical evidence and
probabilities (e.g., need for implant removal, likely future
arthritis, etc.).
If insurer says “these heads are speculative”, Hattangadi
allows you to say:
Conjecture up to a point is inevitable, but you must exclude
wild speculation; base it on evidence and probability.
4.
C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair (AIR 1970
SC 376)
Ratio
Fatal Accidents Act case (wrongful death).
Principles about assessment of damages:
Damages are for pecuniary loss to the beneficiaries / estate.
No rigid mathematical formula; must consider:
Life expectancy of deceased and dependants,
-- 69 of 91 --
70 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Reasonable probability of future pecuniary benefit.
Courts must avoid speculation and fancy, but accept that
some conjecture is inevitable.
Relevance here
Your case is injury, not fatal; so this decision is mostly
general guidance. It exclude pure speculation, rely on
reasonable probabilities from the evidence (employment
pattern, salary, probable continuation of work, likely
promotions, etc.). It doesn’t hurt the claimant; it simply
reminds you to write a careful, evidence-based quantum
reasoning.
5.
Yadava Kumar v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10
SCC 341
Ratio : Appellant a painter, with 33% disability of right
upper limb, 21% of left upper limb and 20% of whole body.
Courts below refused any award for loss of future earnings.
Hon’ble Supreme Court said this approach is incorrect and
refers to Note 5 to Second Schedule (guidance for disability
cases). Hon’ble Supreme Court awards lump sum for loss of
future earnings, emphasising:
Courts must award “just compensation”, not be niggardly.
In a free country, law must value life and limb on a
generous scale.
Distinguishes “compensation” from “damages”:
compensation is broader and on a slightly higher footing.
-- 70 of 91 --
71 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Application to your case
Your applicant, like the painter, is in an occupation affected
by loss of mobility of the lower limb.
If insurer argues:
“No proper proof of future loss; disability is only 56% limb;
therefore no or minimal future loss”,
Yadava Kumar supports the opposite:
You must consider how that disability affects his ability to
work; if it clearly hinders his work (standing, walking,
physical labour), some award for loss of future earnings is
mandatory.
The approach must be liberal yet principled, not penny-
pinching.
6.
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
(2010) 10 SCC 254
Ratio
Final-year engineering student, 70% permanent disability.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court looks at his bright prospects as
an engineer. Assesses future earnings by taking probable
salary of an Assistant Engineer in public employment as
base ( 60,000 p.a.), discounts by 30% for disability	₹
(multiplicand 42,000), applies multiplier 18, and awards	₹
7,56,000 for future earnings + medical etc.. It follows	₹
Susamma Thomas,
Sarla Verma, and
Reshma Kumari on
multiplier and future prospects.
-- 71 of 91 --
72 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Application to your case
Principle:
Even if claimant is not yet earning a high income or is
mid-career, the Tribunal can look at his reasonably
expected earnings given his skill and job situation, then
discount for disability and apply correct multiplier.
If your applicant’s salary is proved (say as a
worker/employee), you can take the proved or reasonably
assessed salary, apply functional disability %, apply
multiplier by age, as per
Sarla Verma’s table, award
structured loss of future earning capacity.
If insurer suggests that such projection is speculative,
Arvind Mishra backs you in looking ahead and considering
career prospects.
7. Putting it together for MACP No.326/2023
(A) What these rulings collectively require you to do
1. On disability & income: Convert 56% limb disability into
Reasoned whole-body disability, then Reasoned functional
disability / loss of earning capacity in light of his job. Assess
his actual income (salary slips / testimony / minimum
wages). Use multiplier method (Sarla Verma line). Do not
deduct 1/3rd for personal expenses (injury case).
2. On heads of compensation:
Pecuniary:
Past medical expenses (bills, prescriptions).
Future medical expenses (implant removal, follow-up,
possible future complications).
Loss of earnings during treatment (actual days off work).
Loss of future earning capacity (functional disability ×
-- 72 of 91 --
73 MACP No.326/2023[J]
income × multiplier).
Attendant charges (past and future, if evidence supports).
Non-pecuniary:
Pain and suffering (severity of injury, surgeries, duration of
pain).
Loss of amenities / enjoyment of life (difficulty walking,
sitting cross-legged, running, recreational activities).
Possibly mental stress, frustration, loss of expectation of
active life.
3. On approach & standard:
Compensation must be “just”, liberal but not fanciful. Some
guesswork is permissible, but grounded in evidence and
probabilities. You must avoid double counting, but also
must not strip away legitimate heads (e.g., you can give
both: loss of future income, and a separate amount for
permanent disability / amenities, unless loss of earning is
treated as 100%).
(B) How the insurer might try to use these cases – and the
correct answer
Insurer’s likely line: “Raj Kumar says don’t equate medical
disability with economic loss, so reduce percentage.”
“Subramonia Iyer / Hattangadi say avoid speculation, so no
or low future medical / future loss.”
“No double counting under several heads.”
Your balanced application:
Accept Raj Kumar’s method, but use it to make a proper,
reasoned functional-disability finding – not to trivialise
disability.
Use Hattangadi, Yadava Kumar, Kavin to justify a
structured, multi-head award, liberal but evidence-based
amounts, Proper provision for future medical and attendant
-- 73 of 91 --
74 MACP No.326/2023[J]
charges.
Rely on Kavin to say:
Permanent disability head is separate from loss of income.
The Loss of enjoyment/amenities & pain/suffering of family
cannot be deleted without cogent reasons.
“Quantum of Compensation”:
The opposite party’s own authorities –
Raj Kumar, Hattangadi, Subramonia Iyer, Yadava Kumar,
Arvind Mishra, Kavin –mandate that:
1. Disability must be translated into a reasoned functional
loss of earning capacity, not ignored.
2. The Tribunal must award just compensation, which is
liberal, covers all relevant pecuniary and non-pecuniary
heads, makes reasonable provision for future medical and
attendant needs, avoids both speculation and unwarranted
parsimony.
So, properly read and applied to the facts and evidence,
these rulings strengthen the applicant’s case for a full and
fair award, rather than supporting any drastic downward
revision at the instance of the insurer.
I. Insurer’s Written Arguments – Core Points
From the written arguments of New India Assurance (Adv.
S.V. Gawai):
1. No valid DL of motorcycle driver produced
Applicant hasn’t produced the driving licence of the
motorcyclist.
-- 74 of 91 --
75 MACP No.326/2023[J]
They invoke Sections 3 & 5 M.V. Act and say: therefore,
presume driver had no valid licence violation of law	→ →
presumption against applicant.
2. Doubt over accident itself / police papers
Accident: 27-12-2022.
Two GD entries:
27-12-2022: both vehicles mentioned.
28-12-2022: only one vehicle mentioned.
No FIR registered.
They argue: this inconsistency + no FIR = accident not
properly recorded authenticity of accident doubtful	→ →
negligence not proved.
3. Non-production of motorcycle documents
Car documents (MH-12-JC-5205) filed by respondent.
Applicant has not produced:
RC of motorcycle
PUC
Insurance policy of motorcycle
Driving licence of its driver
They say: this non-production creates a presumption that
the bike was being driven in violation of Sections 3 & 5
M.V. Act.
-- 75 of 91 --
76 MACP No.326/2023[J]
4. Disability certificate attacked
Applicant treated at B.R. Ambedkar Municipal Hospital and
Permanent disability certificate is by Dr. Naresh Khanna, a
doctor who did not treat the applicant. Hence, they say the
certificate is unreliable; cannot be basis for assessing
disability or compensation.
5. Case law cited
1.
CA No. 4380 of 2025, decided 25-03-2025 – Srikrishna
Kanta Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025 ACJ 721).
2.
Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, 2008 ACJ 1834
(SC).
3.
SLP(C) 20702-03 of 2021 2025 INSC 107 – T.
→
Rajamoni v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2025).
6. Prayer
Accident not proved properly.
Negligence of respondent not established.
No valid bike documents.
Disability certificate unreliable.
Claim be dismissed; burden not discharged.	→
Now, let’s see what their own Supreme Court authorities
actually say.
II.
2025 INSC 107 – T. Rajamoni v. Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd..
Core facts (as per extract)
Claimant (mason) – serious head injuries:
Temporal bone fracture, biparietal fracture, clavicle
-- 76 of 91 --
77 MACP No.326/2023[J]
fracture.
Tribunal took his daily income as 450 and applied	₹
multiplier for 70% disability loss of future income.	→
High Court interfered and gave much lower compensation
by using “ 3,000 per % disability”.	₹
Insurer before Hon’ble Supreme Court:
Disputed disability certificate – no certificate by “competent
authority”; PW-2 not signatory.
Supreme Court:
Notes PW-2 is not signatory to disability certificate.
But also takes note of serious, proven head injuries with
multiple operations. Ongoing disabilities (memory loss,
defective speech, etc.) and holds that the Tribunal cannot
treat him as suffering only 100 per day loss.	₹
The Hon’ble High Court’s “ 3,000 per %” is arbitrary.	₹
Having regard to his avocation (mason) and injuries, a
lump sum for loss of earning capacity of 7,50,000/- is	₹
proper.
Re-works compensation head-wise (loss of income, pain &
suffering, medical bills, earning loss, attendant charges,
amenities, transport) and fixes total at 12,09,017 with	₹
7.5% interest.
Ratio relevant to the case
1. Even if disability certificate is “technically imperfect”
(doctor not signatory, not competent authority), serious
-- 77 of 91 --
78 MACP No.326/2023[J]
injuries + clinical sequelae can justify a substantial award
for loss of earning capacity.
2. Court looks at:
Avocation (mason – physically demanding),
Nature of injuries,
Realistic employability,
and then fixes a reasonable lump sum.
Insurer is trying to say:
“Doctor who issued disability certificate didn’t treat the
applicant and has issued unreliable certificate even though
the applicant has no permanent disability.”
Rajamoni actually supports the opposite approach:
The Hon’ble Supreme Court did not throw out the claim
just because PW-2 wasn’t the signatory to the disability
certificate.
It relied on:
Medical record (discharge summaries, operations), Doctor’s
evidence (PW-2), Claimant’s continuing problems, and still
awarded a large lump sum for loss of earning capacity.
Mere fact that the disability certificate is issued by a doctor
who did not treat the applicant, by itself, is not sufficient to
discard it, particularly when the injuries, the surgery, and
the continuing disability are otherwise proved by medical
records and oral evidence. The Supreme Court in T.
Rajamoni (2025 INSC 107) accepted compensation for loss
of earning capacity even where the disability certificate was
challenged, by looking at the overall medical evidence and
the claimant’s avocation.
III. 2025 ACJ 721 – Srikrishna Kanta Singh v. Oriental
-- 78 of 91 --
79 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Insurance Co. Ltd. (CA 4380/2025)
Core facts
Accident between scooter and trailer Claimant was a pillion
rider on scooter, then working as BDO, later became IPS.
The Tribunal held that scooter hit tail end of trailer and
scooterist should have been more cautious and apportioned
negligence 60:40 between trailer & scooter.
Hon’ble High Court has confirmed composite negligence
and particularly emphasised on Collision at tail end.
Scooterist had only learner’s licence and yet carried a
pillion rider, hence held against scooterist.
Importantly:
Police charge-sheeted the trailer driver, not the scooterist.
In claim, injured stated accident due to trailer driver’s
negligence.
This deposition was not challenged in cross-examination.
Insurer’s contention of negligence of scooterist not pleaded
properly and not supported with evidence.
Supreme Court’s findings / ratio
1. Standard of proof:
Motor accident claims are decided on preponderance of
probabilities, not strict criminal proof. It is not “adversarial”
litigation in strict sense.
-- 79 of 91 --
80 MACP No.326/2023[J]
2. Role of police chargesheet:
Chargesheet against trailer driver is prima facie indication
of his negligence, unless convincingly rebutted by evidence.
Tribunal/Hon’ble High Court should not disregard this and
invent negligence of scooterist on mere surmise.
3. “Not cautious” vs “negligent”:
Being merely “not cautious” is not equal to actionable
negligence. Tribunal’s assumption that scooter driver
“should have been more cautious” is not a sustainable
finding of contributory negligence.
4. Learner’s licence point:
Holding a learner’s licence and carrying a pillion rider may
be an offence / violation of licensing conditions, but
Violation of learner’s licence conditions does not itself
establish negligence in causing the accident.
It may have consequences under M.V. Act / policy, but not
for deciding who caused the accident when all other
evidence points to trailer driver’s fault.
5. Quantum:
For amputation of both legs, Court enhances compensation
to 16,00,000 ( 5 lakh towards disability + amenities, 9	₹ ₹ ₹
lakh for medical & artificial limbs, 2 lakh for attendant).	₹
Insurer’s argument:
Applicant hasn’t produced DL of bike driver presume no	→
valid licence violation of Ss.3 & 5 hence, negligence of	→ →
bike side and claim should fail.
But Srikrishna Kanta Singh lays down:
Absence or infirmity in licence is not proof of negligence.
-- 80 of 91 --
81 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Negligence must be inferred from:
Evidence of how the accident occurred (oral, documentary),
Police investigation (panchnama, spot sketch, chargesheet).
If police papers (panchnama, accident report, chargesheet
or ADR/MACT police report) show rash and negligent
driving of the car/its driver, and witnesses (applicant /
pillion) have deposed accordingly and stood unshaken in
cross-examination, you can treat that as sufficient proof on
preponderance of probabilities.
Non-production of motorcycle driver’s licence does not
absolve the car owner/insurer of negligence; at most, it may
raise a separate issue of policy breach for the bike, which is
a different contract, not the present respondent’s.
Thus, this SC decision actually supports the claimant on
negligence and undercuts insurer’s attempt to rely on
license defect to deny liability.
IV.
Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh, 2008 ACJ 1834
(SC)
Brief ratio (very similar theme)
Facts (in short): a young boy driving scooter without valid
licence collides with a truck.
Insurer / truck side argued:
“He had no licence / underage he must be negligent	→ →
our truck driver not liable.”
Supreme Court’s core holding:
-- 81 of 91 --
82 MACP No.326/2023[J]
1. Mere breach of licensing provision (no DL / underage)
doesn’t automatically mean the accident happened due to
his negligence.
2. The other driver’s negligence must still be independently
proved.
3. Absence of licence is relevant vis-à-vis: the contract of
insurance, Statutory breach, but not a substitute for proof
of rash and negligent driving.
The absence or non-production of the driving licence by
itself cannot be treated as proof that the motorcyclist was
rash or negligent or that the accident occurred solely due to
his fault. The respondent must still establish, by acceptable
evidence, that its driver was not negligent or that the
motorcyclist was wholly or partly responsible.
If, the car driver’s negligence is established, the insurer
cannot get a dismissal simply by pointing to an alleged
licence violation on the part of the motorcycle driver.
V. The “documents of motorcycle” & GD entries
(A) Non-submission of bike’s RC / PUC / insurance / DL
These documents relate essentially to:
Ownership, Roadworthiness (PUC), Insurance coverage of
the motorcycle, Licensing compliance.
They do not fundamentally decide:
Whether the accident occurred as alleged, or
Whether the car driver (their insured) was negligent.
On liability in your case:
-- 82 of 91 --
83 MACP No.326/2023[J]
The claim is against B.G. Shirke (car owner) and its insurer
(New India).
Their liability depends on:
Whether their vehicle was involved, and
Whether their driver was rash and negligent.
The bike’s RC/PUC/insurance/DL might be relevant for:
A separate claim against the bike owner/insurer, or
a possible contributory negligence argument (if facts
support), or Policy issues of that vehicle. But, per Srikrishna
Kanta Singh and Sudhir Kumar Rana, you cannot:
Throw out the entire claim against the car just because the
claimant didn’t produce documents of the motorcycle, when
the primary negligence of the car driver is otherwise
supported by evidence.
(B) GD entries vs FIR
Insurer says:
Two GD entries – first mentions both vehicles; second
mentions only one vehicle; no FIR –> accident doubtful.
In MACT jurisprudence:
FIR is not sine qua non; what matters is overall evidence:
GD / station diary entries, MLC (casualty register / medico-
legal papers), Spot panchnama / accident report,
Charge sheet (if any), Oral evidence of claimant /
eyewitness.
-- 83 of 91 --
84 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Immediate GD entry on date of accident naming both
vehicles (27-12-2022), medical records from the same night
/next day linking injury to road accident, any spot
panchnama / police report mentioning both vehicles, then a
second, partial GD entry next day is at best a minor
discrepancy.
The Tribunal can therefore:
Treat the first GD + medical record as sufficient to fix
involvement of the car.
Rely on the Supreme Court’s consistent view that MACT
proceedings are summary and driven by preponderance of
probabilities, not technicalities of FIR drafting.
VI. Disability certificate & quantum – combined view with
earlier rulings
1. Rajkumar, Hattangadi, Yadava Kumar, Arvind Mishra,
Kavin (you gave earlier):
How to assess permanent disability, functional disability,
loss of earning capacity, and distinct non-pecuniary heads.
2.
T. Rajamoni (2025 INSC 107):
Even where the disability certificate is imperfect or issued
by someone who isn’t the treating doctor, the Court can
still:
Consider overall evidence of serious injuries, operations,
continuing complaints,
Recognise significant impact on employability,
Grant a reasonable lump sum for loss of earning capacity.
-- 84 of 91 --
85 MACP No.326/2023[J]
So, facing the insurer’s point “Dr. Khanna did not treat →
certificate unreliable”, you can reason:
AW-2/doctor (if examined) + municipal hospital records
prove:
The injuries, the surgery, the residual limitations.
Dr. Khanna’s certificate, though by a non-treating doctor, is
an expert evaluation of permanent residual disability,
corroborated by the clinical history and radiology.
The Supreme Court approach is not to discard the claim
merely for technical defects in certification, but to evaluate
the weight of the certificate, Possibly cross-check it with
medical records, then quantify disability / loss of earning
capacity on a reasoned basis (may be multiplier or lump
sum).
VII. Putting it all together – what the Tribunal can safely
hold
Subject of course to appreciation of evidence already
recorded, the above authorities support a reasoning along
these lines:
1. Accident & involvement of car
GD entries, medical records and oral evidence establish
that: Accident on 27-12-2022 did occur, Car No.MH-12-JC-
5205 and the applicant’s motorcycle were involved. Minor
discrepancy between two GD entries is not enough to
discard the accident itself.
2. Negligence
-- 85 of 91 --
86 MACP No.326/2023[J]
On preponderance of probabilities, and especially if
Police papers attribute rash and negligent driving to the car
driver, or Applicant’s testimony on manner of accident is
consistent and unshaken. Then, following Sunita, Dulcina
Fernandes, Mangla Ram, Srikrishna Kanta Singh and Sudhir
Kumar Rana:
This Tribunal can hold the car driver negligent, Any
allegation that the motorcyclist was also negligent must be
pleaded and proved, not assumed from licence issues.
3. Driving licence / bike documents
Non-production of the motorcycle driver’s DL, RC, PUC,
insurance does not, by itself:
Disprove the accident, Or prove that the car driver was not
negligent.
Violation of Sections 3 & 5 M.V. Act is an offence / policy
issue, but not a substitute for proof of negligence (per
Sudhir Kumar Rana, Srikrishna Kanta Singh).
4. Disability & quantum
Serious injuries, surgery and residual difficulty are proved
by hospital records.
Disability certificate by Dr. Khanna, though not the treating
doctor, can be:
Read with other medical evidence,
Used to assess permanent disability, functional disability,
and loss of earning capacity.
-- 86 of 91 --
87 MACP No.326/2023[J]
T. Rajamoni authorises a lump sum approach if multiplier is
not strictly workable, but the loss of earning capacity is real.
Non-pecuniary heads (pain & suffering, amenities) must
also be awarded, consistent with Hattangadi, Kavin,
Srikrishna Kanta Singh.
5. Burden of proof
Applicant has to establish accident, involvement of
offending vehicle and negligence on preponderance of
probabilities – not beyond reasonable doubt.
Once that is done, bald technical objections about licences
and minor GD discrepancies cannot justify dismissal of the
entire petition.
5. Findings on Negligence – Issue No.1 & 2
(i). The applicant (PW-1) has given a consistent
account of the accident. His testimony is corroborated
by FIR, spot panchanama and the charge-sheet filed
against the driver of the offending motor car.
(ii). No material contradictions were elicited in
cross-examination. No independent contrary evidence
has been led by the opponents.
(iii). Police papers, though not conclusive proof,
carry significant evidentiary value in MACT
proceedings. They support the applicant’s version and
establish rash and negligent driving on a
preponderance of probabilities.
(iv). The theory of contributory negligence is
unsupported by evidence.
-- 87 of 91 --
88 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Issue Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative.
6. Findings on Policy Breach – Issue Nos.3 and 4
(v). Opponent No.2 alleged breach of policy
conditions, particularly regarding driving licence, but
has failed to prove any wilful or fundamental breach.
(vi). In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh
(2004) 3 SCC 297, the Supreme Court held that the
insurer must prove breach and that, even if proved,
the remedy is ordinarily pay and recover, not
complete exoneration.
(vii). In the present case, no cogent evidence of
licence invalidity or other breach has been produced.
Issue No.3 and 4 are answered in the negative. Opponent
No.2 remains liable.
7. Quantum of Compensation – Issue No.5
7.1 Income and Disability Assessment
(i). Monthly income proved: 20,700/-	₹
(ii). Age at the time of accident: 39 years →
Multiplier 15 (as per
Sarla Verma)
(iii). Permanent physical disability (whole body):
25%
7.2 Compensation Under Various Heads
(A) Loss of future earning capacity (25%)
(i)Annual income = 20,700 × 12 = 2,48,400	₹
(ii)25% disability annual loss = 62,100	→
(iii)Applying multiplier 15:
62,100 × 15 = 9,31,500/-	₹ ₹
-- 88 of 91 --
89 MACP No.326/2023[J]
(B) Loss of income during treatment (4 months): 20,700 ×
4 = 82,800/-	₹
(C) Medical expenses (as proved): 50,000/-	₹
(D) Future medical expenses: 30,000/-	₹
(E) Pain, shock and suffering: 75,000/-	₹
(F) Loss of amenities and enjoyment of life: 50,000/-	₹
(G) Attendant charges, special diet and conveyance:
15,000/-	₹
7.3 Total Compensation
Head Amount
(A) Future earning
capacity 9,31,500	₹
(B) Treatment period
income loss 82,800	₹
(C) Medical expenses 50,000	₹
(D) Future medical
expenses 30,000	₹
(E) Pain & suffering 75,000	₹
(F) Loss of amenities 50,000	₹
(G) Attendant, diet,
conveyance 15,000	₹
TOTAL 12,34,300/-	₹
Thus, the applicant is entitled to a total amount of
12,34,300/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty-Four Thousand	₹
-- 89 of 91 --
90 MACP No.326/2023[J]
Three Hundred only).
7.4 Interest
The applicant shall be entitled to interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date of filing of the petition till
realisation.
8. Order – Issue No.6
ORDER
1. The application is allowed with costs.
2. It is declared that the applicant sustained injuries in
the motor accident dated 27.12.2022 due to rash and
negligent driving of the offending motor car.
3. The applicant is entitled to total compensation of
12,34,300/- (Rupees Twelve Lakh Thirty-Four Thousand	₹
Three Hundred only) together with interest @ 7.5% p.a.
from the date of filing of the application till realisation.
4. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be jointly and severally
liable to pay the said amount. Primary liability to deposit
the amount is fastened upon Opponent No.2 – insurer.
5. The insurer shall deposit the awarded amount within
two months, failing which enhanced interest at the rate of
9% p.a. may follow as per law. The Opponent No.2 (New
-- 90 of 91 --
91 MACP No.326/2023[J]
India Assurance Co. Ltd.) shall deposit the awarded amount
along with the interest as directed above to the credit of the
below stated bank account of this Tribunal directly by
NEFT/RTGS:-
Account Name MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL MUMBAI
Account No. 00000040777482356
IFS Code. SBIN0030002
MICR Code. 400002273
6. On deposit, disbursement shall be made to the
applicant as per further directions of the Tribunal regarding
release and investment.
7. Award be drawn accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court.
Date: 10.12.2025 (S.E.Bangar)
Place: Mumbai Member, C.R.3,
MACT, Mumbai
-- 91 of 91 --