Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
Presented on : 02.05.2022
Decided on : 08.12.2025
Duration : 3Y/7M/6D
Exh.
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
(Presided over by Smt. Monica I. Arland)
Motor Accident Claims Petition No.1038 of 2022
Miss. Aasma Mohammed Akbar Shaikh.
Aged about 25 years,
Residing at:
Room No.873, Chawl 110,
M.H.B. Colony, Gaikwad Nagar,
Gate-8, Near Bharat Mata School,
Kharoli, Malwani,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 095. ... Applicant
- Versus -
Executive Engineer Transport,
(Western Suburb)
Opp. Milan Mall,
Milan Subway Road,
Off. S. V. Road, Santacruz (W),
Mumbai – 400 054. … Opposite party
Petition for compensation amount Rs.3,00,000/-
-------------------------------
Shri. S. S. Shroff. - Advocate for applicant.
Smt. Smita Charatkar - Advocate for the opposite party.
-------------------------
-- 1 of 23 --
2 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on this 08th December, 2025)
1. This petition has been filed by the applicant under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- from the opposite party.
2. According to the applicant, on 18.01.2022 at about
10:15 hrs. the applicant was proceeding as a pillion rider on
motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-04-JD-0571 on Marve
Road towards Marve Beach direction with due care and caution.
When she reached opposite T-Junction, Malad (W), at that time
the Garbage van bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 came
from Marve Beach direction in very high and excessive speed,
driven rashly and negligently and gave dash to the footboard of
applicant’s motorcycle. Due to this impact, she fell down and
sustained serious injuries. The applicant has sustained injury to
left foot and calf region, fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal
and other injuries. She was taken to K. B. Raksha Hospital, Malad
(W) and admitted there on 18.01.2022. She has undergone medical
treatment and incurred expenditure of Rs.25,000/- for medical
treatment, special diet and conveyance.
3. The Police Station, Malvani, Mumbai registered an
offence against the driver of Municipal Corporation Garbage van
bearing registration No. MH-02-FG-3015 under section 279, 337
and 338 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sec.184 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
-- 2 of 23 --
3 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
4. At the time of accident, the applicant was 25 years and
self employed as L.I.C. agent. She was earning Rs.25,000/- per
month. She has claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the
opposite party.
5. The Opposite party has filed written statement vide
Exh.10 and resisted the claim of the applicant. It is contended that,
there was no negligence of the driver of the garbage van bearing
registration No.MH-02-FG-3015. At the time of accident the driver
of the garbage van while taking U turn signaled the vehicles
coming from behind by raising his hand from the right side
window. However, the motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-04-
JD-0571 came in rash and negligent manner from the right side of
Municipal vehicle. The driver of the garbage van observed this, he
applied brake immediately. The motorcyclist could not control the
speed and balance and in that attempt, the leg of the pillion rider,
came in contact with the bumper of Municipal vehicle and fell on
the road.
6. It is contended that the accident took place due to rash
and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and there was
no fault of the driver of opposite party. It is further contended that
the opposite party is not liable to pay the compensation.
7. It is submitted that on 18.01.2022, Shri. Kashinath
Koli, the driver attended the duty in the first shift at 7.00 am. at
Gorai Depot, who was given the open truck bearing registration
No.MH-02-FG-3015 and was directed to report to A.E.(Maint.)
-- 3 of 23 --
4 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
Department of ‘P/N’ Ward wherein Sanjay Salvi, the cleaner had
accompanied him.
8. It is also submitted that as per the instructions, they
departed Gorai garage, at about 07.15 a.m. and proceeded.
However, when they reached to the maintenance department at
‘P/N’ Ward, they were told to collect 10 gunny bags of tar from the
chowki of Maintenance Department at Marve Road. Moreover,
there were 3 labourers from the maintenance department boarded
the open truck and thereafter they proceeded towards maintenance
department of A.E. (Maint.) for collecting the gunny bags of tar.
9. It is further submitted that they reached the Marve
Road and loaded the gunny bags of tar and thereafter the labourers
and the tar gunny bags were to be dropped at A.E.(Maint.)
Department of ‘P/N’ Ward, therefore, they started proceeding
towards Liberty Garden office.
10. It is submitted that while returning, when they reached
at Marve Road and while taking U-turn for proceeding towards the
P/N office, the driver of the truck saw one motorcyclist which was
coming in rash and negligent manner from the right side of the
Municipal vehicle. However, the motorcyclist could not control the
speed and balance of his motorcycle and in the attempt of avoiding
collision between the motorcycle and the truck, the leg of the
pillion rider came in contact with the bumper of Municipal vehicle
because of which the pillion rider fell down.
-- 4 of 23 --
5 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
11. It is also submitted that as the motorcyclist was riding
his motorcycle in a fast speed, driven rashly and negligently,
therefore, the accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part
of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the offending
vehicle has not contributed in commission of the alleged accident.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
12. I have framed the Issues vide Exh.14 on 19.07.2025 and
record my finding thereon for the reasons given below.
Sr.No. Points Findings
1) Whether the accident took place on
18.01.2022 due to rash and negligent
driving of the Motor Truck bearing
registration No. MH-02-FG-3015?
Affirmative
2) Whether the claimant sustained
permanent disability due to the
injuries suffered by her in the said
accident? If yes, to what extent?
Negative
3) Whether the claimant is entitled to
get compensation? If yes, to what
extent?
Yes,
Rs.5,65,973/-.
4) Who is liable to pay the
compensation?
Opposite Party
5) What Award? As per final order
R E A S O N S
As to Issue No.1 :-
13. In order to prove the contentions made in the petition,
the applicant has examined herself vide Exh.15 who proved the FIR
-- 5 of 23 --
6 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
(Exh.18), Spot Panchanama (Exh.19), Crime Details Form
(Exh.20), Arrest Form (Exh.21), Mechanical Inspection Report
(Exh.22), MLC of Raksha Multispeciality Hospital (Exh.23), details
of vehicle bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 (Exh.24),
fitness certificate (Exh.25), details of Tax Exemption (Exh.26),
Form N.T. (Exh.27), Form No.53 (Exh.28), discharge card of
Raksha Hospital (Exh.29), discharge card of Jai Ambe Hospital
(Exh.30), medical bills (Exh.31 ) and digital x-ray (Exh.32).
14. The Opposite party have examined Shri. Kashinath
Shimgya Koli, vide Exh.38, the driver of the vehicle bearing
registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 in support of their defence and
closed its evidence by filing pursis Exh.40.
15. Perused the record. Heard Learned Counsel Shri. S. S.
Shroff for the applicant and Smt. Smita Charatkar for the Opposite
Party.
16. It is argued by Learned counsel for the applicant that
the accident took place on 18.01.2022 at about 10:15 hrs. while the
applicant was the pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration
No.MH-04-JD-0571 and was proceeding on Marve Road towards
Marve Beach. When she reached opposite T-Junction, Malad (W),
at that time the Garbage Van bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-
3015 came from Marve Beach direction in very high and excessive
speed, driven rashly and negligently and gave dash to the
footboard of applicant’s motorcycle. Due to this impact, she fell
down and sustained serious injuries. The applicant has sustained
-- 6 of 23 --
7 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
injury to left foot and calf region, fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th
metatarsal and other injuries. She was taken to K. B. Raksha
Hospital, Malad (W) and admitted there from 18.01.2022 to
25.01.2022. She was operated on 18.01.2022. She was again
admitted in Jai Ambe Hospital, Mira Road (E), Dist. Thane from
26.01.2022 to 05.02.2022 and ORIF and K-wire was done.
17. It is also argued that the applicant was aged about 25
years and was self employed as L.I.C. Agent wherein she was
earning Rs.25,000/- per month. However, she has sustained 49%
disablement due to blunt injury to left foot, fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd,
4th and 5th metatarsal, CLW over left foot dorsum.
18. It is further argued that, the applicant has incurred
Rs.3,00,320/- for medical treatment. Out of which Rs.1,20,000/-
paid towards Raksha Multispeciality Hospital bill, Rs.69,616/-
towards Jai Ambe Hospital bill, and Rs.1,10,704/- towards
medicine purchased from different medical stores.
19. It is argued that as the applicant was self employed as
L.I.C. Agent and was earning of Rs.25,000/- per month and due to
the accidental injuries she suffered a loss of income for 6 months.
20. Per contra, it is argued by the Learned counsel for the
Opposite Party that there was no negligence on the part of the
driver of Municipal Garbage Van and the accident took place due
to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing registration
No.MH-04-JD-0571. Moreover, the applicant has given false
-- 7 of 23 --
8 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
statement in the police and based on that information, the police
have filed false criminal proceeding against the driver.
21. It is further argued that the driver of the Municipal van
was taking U-turn and at that time, the motorcycle came in speed
and in order to avoid the dash, the pillion rider came in front of the
offending vehicle.
22. It is argued that the Dr. Naresh Khanna has assessed
permanent partial disability without mentioning the injuries as per
the hospital papers. His evidence cannot be considered. The
applicant has not sustained any disability.
23. Aasma Mohammed Akbar Shaikh (AW1) has testified
vide Exh.15 and she reiterated about the incident. According to her
on 18.01.2022 at about 10.15 hrs. she was the pillion rider on
motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-04-JD-0571 and was
proceeding on Marve Road towards Marve Beach. When she
reached opposite T-Junction, Malad (W), at that time Garbage van
bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 came from Marve Beach
direction in very high and excessive speed, driven rashly and
negligently and gave dash to the footboard of applicant’s
motorcycle. Due to this impact, she fell down and sustained serious
injuries. The applicant has sustained injury to left foot and calf
region, fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal and other
injuries.
-- 8 of 23 --
9 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
24. She also deposed that she was immediately taken to
K. B. Raksha Hospital, Malad (W) and was admitted there from
18.01.2022 to 25.01.2022. She was operated on 18.01.2022.
She was again admitted in Jai Ambe Hospital, Mira Road (E), Dist.
Thane from 26.01.2022 to 05.02.2022 wherein ORIF and K-wire
was done. She proved the FIR (Exh.18), Spot Panchanama
(Exh.19), Crime Details Form (Exh.20), Arrest Form (Exh.21),
Mechanical Inspection Report (Exh.22), MLC of Raksha
Multispeciality Hospital (Exh.23), details of vehicle bearing
registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 (Exh.24), fitness certificate
(Exh.25), details of Tax Exemption (Exh.26), Form N.T. (Exh.27),
Form No.53 (Exh.28), discharge card of Raksha Hospital (Exh.29),
discharge card of Jai Ambe Hospital (Exh.30), medical bills
(Exh.31), digital x-ray (Exh.32).
25. She was confronted on the point of type of vehicle upon
which she was the pillion rider. She admitted that the accident
took place on Marve Beach and at the time of accident the BMC
vehicle was taking U-turn. She denied the suggestion that as the
BMC vehicle was taking U-turn, therefore it was in low speed.
26. She also denied the specific suggestion put forth to her
that her friend came from right side in high speed and he dashed
against the BMC vehicle. She specifically denied the suggestion
that she did not sustain any injury in the said accident.
27. At the outset, it is to be seen as to whether the applicant
sustained grievous injuries/permanent disability in the accident
-- 9 of 23 --
10 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
which took place on 18.01.2022 at about 10:15 hrs. while she was
proceeding as pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration
No.MH-04-JD-0571. In this respect, the police papers are required
to be scrutinized. The copy of FIR (Exh.18), Spot Panchanama
(Exh.19) and Crime Detail Report (Exh.20) are filed on record.
On perusal of the FIR, it discloses that the offence was initially
registered against the unknown driver of Mumbai Municipal
Corporation garbage vehicle. However, on 20.01.2022, the
supplementary statement of the applicant was recorded wherein
there was disclosure about the registration number of the
offending garbage van so also the driver. The offence was
registered against the driver of Municipal Corporation Garbage
Van bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 for the offence
punishable under section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal
Code read with Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
28. The Police visited the spot of accident and prepared the
Spot Panchanama. On going through the spot panchanama
(Exh.19) and Crime Detail Form (Exh.20), it discloses that it was
drawn in presence of Shakib Menon and Jahida Menon on
18.01.2022. The Discharge card of Raksha Multispeciality Hospital
at Exh.29 discloses that the applicant was treated in the said
hospital from 18.01.2022 to 25.01.2022 as indoor patient and she
was operated on 18.01.2022. The Discharge Card of Jai Ambe
Hospital Exh.30 which discloses that the applicant injured was
admitted on 26.01.2022 to 05.02.2022.
-- 10 of 23 --
11 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
29. On going through the evidence, documents filed on
record and the submissions of applicant, it appears that the
accident took place on 18.01.2022 on Marve Road towards Marve
Beach, Malad (W), Mumbai due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the Garbage van bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-
3015.
30. All these documents duly corroborate with the evidence
adduced by the applicant to show that on 18.01.2022 due to
involvement of Garbage van bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-
3015, owned by the opposite party, the applicant sustained blunt
injury to left foot, fracture of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th metatarsal, CLW
over left foot dorsum and other injuries. Therefore, I answer Issue
No.1 in the affirmative.
As to Issue Nos.2 to 5 :-
31. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, it is
contended by applicant that she had sustained permanent
disablement to the extent of 49%. However, original discharge
card of Raksha Hospital (Exh.29), original discharge card of Jai
Ambe Hospital (Exh.30), medicine bills (from page No.1 to 83B)
(Exh.31) and digital x-ray (Exh.32) are duly proved by the
applicant.
32. It is argued by the learned counsel for the applicant
that injured has sustained injuries in the said accident for which
she was treated at Raksha Multispeciality Hospital, Marve Road,
Malad (W), Mumbai and Jai Ambe Hospital, Mira Road, Dist.
-- 11 of 23 --
12 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
Thane. Moreover, towards the medical treatment, conveyance and
special diet she has incurred the expenses which is duly proved by
the applicant by leading the oral as well as the documentary
evidence. It is also argued that because of the injuries the
applicant sustained disability and she could not work for more
than 6 months as LIC Agent wherein she used to earn Rs.25,000/-
per month.
33. It is further argued that the Dr. Naresh Khanna (AW2),
the Orthopedic Surgeon had issued the disability certificate which
is duly proved vide Exh.34. Moreover, at the time of accident the
applicant was working as LIC agent and was earning Rs.25,000/-
per month. As the applicant has sustained the permanent partial
disability to the tune of 49% therefore she is entitled for all
pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary expenses.
34. Per contra, it is argued by the learned counsel for the
Opposite party that the testimony of Dr. Khanna (AW2) is not
trustworthy and it cannot be relied upon as he is not the treating
doctor. So also, the income and the disability are not proved by
the applicant. Therefore, the opposite party is not liable to pay the
compensation to the applicant.
35. The applicant Aasma (AW1) testified that after the
accident she was immediately taken to Raksha Multispeciality
Hospital at Malad, Mumbai wherein she was admitted from
18.01.2022 to 25.01.2022. She was again admitted in Jai Ambe
Hospital at Mira Road from 26.01.2022 to 05.02.2022 wherein
-- 12 of 23 --
13 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
ORIF and K-wire fixation was done and she has incurred
Rs.3,00,320/- out of which Rs.1,20,000/- towards Raksha
Multispeciality Hospital and Rs.69,616/- towards Jai Ambe
Hospital and further Rs.1,70,704/- towards purchase of medicine
from different medical stores.
36. She testified that she had consulted Dr. Naresh Khanna
(AW2) who has issued the disability certificate on 05.01.2024 with
the assessment of 49% permanent partial disability.
37. She was cross examined at length from the side of the
Opposite Party on the point of sustaining injury, treatment,
hospitalization, incurring of expenses and further treatment.
However, all the adverse suggestions put forth to her in respect of
the injury, treatment, hospitalization and incurring of the
expenses are specifically denied by her.
38. To prove the disability, the applicant examined
Dr. Naresh Khanna (AW2) vide Exh.33. He deposed that he had
examined the applicant on 05.01.2024 and have assessed the
permanent partial disability to the extent of 49% wherein the
applicant had narrated that the accident took place on 18.01.2022
whereby she had taken treatment in Raksha Multispeciality
Hospital at Malad and thereafter in Jai Ambe Hospital at Mira
Road, Dist. Thane. According to him, he had perused the hospital
papers which were brought by the applicant.
39. It is also his evidence that on examination clinically he
had observed the following injuries :
-- 13 of 23 --
14 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
i) Blunt injury to left foot.
ii) Fracture of left 1st , 2nd, 3rd , 4th and 5th metatarsal,
iii) CLW over left foot dorsum.
iv) CLW on top leg mid calf.
40. He deposed that on 05.01.2024 after examining the
applicant clinically and radiologically he has assessed the disability
to the tune of 49%.
41. He was cross examined at length from the side of
Opposite party on the point of clinical examination of the
applicant, issuance of disability certificate, assessment of partial
permanent disability on higher side and fitness of the applicant to
perform her routine. However, he denied the adverse suggestions
put forth to him in respect of issuance of incomplete disablement
certificate of the applicant.
42. However, on scanning of the oral as well as the
documentary evidence, it can be seen that the accident took place
on 18.01.2022 at about 10.15 hrs and the applicant was treated at
Raksha Multispeciality Hospital at Malad from 18.01.2022 to
25.01.2022 and thereafter in Jai Ambe Hospital at Mira Road,
Dist. Thane from 26.01.2022 to 05.02.2022.
43. In Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar [2011 ACJ 1 (SC)], the
principle of assessment, determination of loss of future earning of
the injured with reference to the extent of his permanent
disablement, quantum and injury is discussed at length. However,
-- 14 of 23 --
15 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
the following are the principles which are enumerated as under:
“(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from
injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.
(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to
the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the
percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently,
the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as
the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases,
where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that
percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as
percentage of permanent disability).
(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who
examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his
permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the
extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is
something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with
reference to the evidence in entirety.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons,
depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job,
age, education and other factors.”
44. Moreover the partial permanent disability is also
discussed in the said case wherein it refers to a person’s inability to
perform some of the duties and bodily functions that one could
perform before the accident.
-- 15 of 23 --
16 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
45. The disability refers to any restriction or lack of ability
to perform an activity in the manner considered normal for a
human-being. Permanent disability refers to the residuary
incapacity or loss of use of some part of the body, found existing at
the end of the period of treatment and recuperation, after
achieving the maximum bodily improvement or recovery which is
likely to remain for the remainder life of the injured. Temporary
disability refers to the incapacity or loss of use of some part of the
body on account of the injury, which will cease to exist at the end of
the period of treatment and recuperation. Permanent disability can
be either partial or total. Partial permanent disability refers to a
person's inability to perform all the duties and bodily functions
that he could perform before the accident, though he is able to
perform some of them and is still able to engage in some gainful
activity. Total permanent disability refers to a person's inability to
perform any avocation or employment related activities as a result
of the accident. The permanent disabilities that may arise from
motor accidents injuries, are of a much wider range when
compared to the physical disabilities which are enumerated in the
Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (`Disabilities Act' for
short). But if any of the disabilities enumerated in section 2(i) of
the Disabilities Act are the result of injuries sustained in a motor
accident, they can be permanent disabilities for the purpose of
claiming compensation.
46. The duty is cast upon the Tribunal to award just which
means that compensation should to the extent possible fully
-- 16 of 23 --
17 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
adequately restored the claimant to the position prior to the
accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss
suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a
fair, reasonable and equitable manner. A Court or Tribunal have to
assess the damages objectively and excludes from consideration
any speculation or fancy though some conjectures with reference to
the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable.
A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury but
also for the loss which is suffered as a result of such injury. This
means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full
life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would
have enjoyed but for the injury and his inability to earn as much as
he used to earn or could have earned.
47. The Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when
medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their
effect, in particularly, the extent of disability. However, section
168 and 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act make it evident that
a Tribunal does not function as a neutral empire as in a civil suit,
but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to
‘hold an enquiry into the claim’ for determining the ‘just
compensation’. The Tribunal should therefore take an active role to
ascertain the true and correct position so that, it can assess the
‘just compensation’. The Tribunal should also act with caution if it
proposed to accept the expert evidence of doctors who did not treat
the injured but who give `ready to use' disability certificates,
without proper medical assessment. There are several instances of
unscrupulous doctors who without treating the injured, readily
-- 17 of 23 --
18 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
giving liberal disability certificates to help the claimants. But where
the disability certificates are given by duly constituted Medical
Boards, they may be accepted subject to evidence regarding the
genuineness of such certificates. The Tribunal may invariably make
it a point to require the evidence of the Doctor who treated the
injured or who assessed the permanent disability. Mere production
of a disability certificate or Discharge Certificate will not be proof
of the extent of disability stated therein unless the Doctor who
treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the
extent of disability of claimant, is tendered for cross-examination
with reference to the certificate.
48. Here in the present matter, the applicant has examined
Dr. Naresh Khanna (AW2) for proving the disablement certificate
which is issued by him vide Exh.34. However, on scanning of the
oral evidence adduced by Dr. Khanna (AW2), it can be seen that on
05.01.2024, he had examined the applicant and assessed her
permanent partial disability to the extent of 49% on the basis of
history narrated by Aasma (AW1) for the accident which had taken
place on 18.01.2022. His evidence is very clear on the point of
treatment of applicant who had taken treatment in Raksha
Multispeciality Hospital at Malad from 18.01.2022 to 25.01.2022
and thereafter in Jai Ambe Hospital at Mira Road, Dist. Thane
from 26.01.2022 to 05.02.2022. There is no iota of evidence which
leads to show or from where, an inference can be drawn that the
said doctor had any occasion to treat the applicant for the injuries
which is alleged to have been sustained due to the said vehicular
accident. In absence of any evidence to the effect of the treatment,
-- 18 of 23 --
19 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
it would be difficult to believe and consider the assessment to the
tune of 49% permanent partial disability assessed by Dr. Khanna
(AW2).
49. Furthermore, mere production of a disability certificate
issued by a doctor who is a private practitioner cannot be
considered as proof to the extent of disability stated therein unless,
the doctor who treated the applicant who medically examined and
assessed the extent of disability of the applicant is tendered for
cross examination with reference to the certificate. Moreover, the
discharge card of Raksha Multispeciality Hospital (Exh.29) and Jai
Ambe Hospital (Exh.30) which are duly proved by the applicant
Aasma (AW1) discloses only about the history, diagnosis and
treatment details wherein there is no mention about any
disablement or likelihood of any disablement in future because of
the injuries sustained by the applicant in the accident.
50. In absence of any evidence in respect of the any
likelihood of disablement in future the testimony of Dr. Khanna
(AW2) cannot be considered and it lacks credence. Therefore,
it can not be considered that the applicant has sustained
permanent partial disablement which has been assessed by
Dr. Khanna (AW2) to the extent of 49%. Therefore, I answer Issue
No.2 in the negative.
51. The applicant has claimed Rs.3,00,320/- towards
medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards special diet and
Rs.12,400/- towards conveyance.
-- 19 of 23 --
20 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
52. To substantiate the expenses incurred by the applicant
for her medical treatment, she has filed the medical bills of Raksha
Multispeciality Hospital, Jai Ambe Hospital and medicine receipts
issued by different chemist vide Exh.31, amounting to
Rs.3,00,320/-. Moreover, as per the pleadings of the applicant at
the time of the accident she was self employed as LIC agent and
was earning Rs.25,000/- per month and have claimed for the loss
of income. However, there is no oral as well as the documentary
evidence led by the applicant to prove her occupation, income and
loss of income.
53. It is to mention that if the disablement certificate is not
proved in the Motor Accident Claim Petition or similar injury
compensation case, it significantly impact the computation of
compensation, especially under the head of ‘disability’. However,
without a valid, proved disablement certificate (usually issued by a
competent medical board), the Court can not assume or rely on any
claimed percentage of disability. Moreover, the Court can still
award compensation, but it must be based on actual, proven
damages such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of
income during treatment, loss of amenities, conveyance, special
diet and attendant charges.
54. Furthermore, in absence of proved disablement
certificate based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal can award lump sum compensation.
-- 20 of 23 --
21 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
55. Here in the present matter, the applicant could not
demonstrate or prove the exact disability percentage, the injuries,
though not certified as permanent, the pain, suffering and the
hardship and there is a lack of precise evidence to apply the
multiplier method, but the injury is still significant, therefore,
considering the nature of injuries sustained by the applicant, in my
opinion, the applicant is entitled for lump sum compensation
which is reasonable, fair and just.
56. It is pertinent to note that though the applicant has claimed
Rs.3,00,320/- towards the hospital and medicine bills, but on
going through the hospital and medicine bills at Exh.31, it can be
seen that the total expenditure towards the same is only to the
extent of Rs.2,78,573/- and therefore, applicant is entitled to
Rs.2,78,573/- towards medical expenditure.
57. Thus, the applicant is entitled to get compensation of
Rs.2,78,573/- towards medical expenditure, Rs.25,000/- for
special diet and Rs.12,400/- for Conveyance. In addition to this,
the applicant is also entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life and
Rs.1,00,000/- towards functional disability. Thus, the applicant is
entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,65,973/- which is just, fair
and reasonable.
58. It is already held that the offending Municipal Garbage
Van bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 is owned by the
opposite party on the date of accident. The applicant has filed the
-- 21 of 23 --
22 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
details of vehicle i.e. virtual RC vide Exh.24 which discloses that
the vehicle bearing registration No.MH-02-FG-3015 is owned by
The Executive Engineer Transport (WS). The accident took place
on 18.01.2022 wherein the Garbage vehicle bearing registration
No. MH-02-FG-3015 is involved. It means at the time of accident,
the vehicle was owned by the opposite party. The applicant has
filed copy of certificate in respect of exemption of motor vehicles
from insurance at Exh.28. Therefore, the Opposite Party is liable to
pay the compensation.
59. The applicant has claimed interest @12% p.a. on the
compensation amount. It is the general principle that in the
petition under Motor Vehicles Act, interest should be granted
equal to the rate of interest on fixed deposits of Nationalized
banks. Therefore, I think it proper to grant interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of
application. Hence, I answer Issue No.2 to 5 accordingly and pass
the following order.
-: O R D E R :-
1. The petition is hereby allowed with costs against
the opposite party.
2. Opposite party shall pay an amount of
Rs.5,65,973/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Five
Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy Three only)
towards compensation to applicant along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
application till its full realization.
-- 22 of 23 --
23 M.A.C.P. No.1038/2022
3. Amount of Rs.25,000/-, if any, granted towards no
fault liability to the applicant shall be adjusted
from the above said amount of compensation.
4. Opposite party is directed to deposit the awarded
amount 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. IFSC MICR
00000040777482356 SBIN0030002 400002273
5. On deposit of the amount, it be paid to the
applicant by NEFT/RTGS in her bank account of
the Nationalised bank of her choice against proper
identification and by following the necessary office
procedure, subject to payment of deficit Court fees,
if any.
6. Award be drawn up accordingly.
[M. I. Arland]
CHAIRMAN
Mumbai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Date: 08.12.2025 MumbaiGDE
-- 23 of 23 --