Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: 1/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
Presented on : 20/09/2021
Decided on : 25/08/2026
Duration : 4Y/11M/05D
BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS
TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI
(Presided over by A. A. Ghaniwale, Member, C.R.No.7)
CNR No. MHMT01-0017772021 Exh: __
M.A.C.P. No.1274 of 2021
Mrs. Riddhi Mangesh Salvi,
Age - 28 years, Occu : --
R/o : Shiv Shakti Chawl, Room No.52,
Near Movie Time Cinema,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064.
….Applicant
Vs
Executive Engineer,
Transport City, Dr. E. Moses Road,
Worli, Garage Building 1st Worli,
Mumbai- 400 018. ….Opp. Party
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri. S. S. Shroff : for the Applicant.
Smt. Smita Charatkar : for the Opp. Party
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 25th August, 2026)
1. The Applicant has submitted this application
u/S. 166 of M. V. Act, claiming just compensation
due to injuries sustained by him in vehicular
accident, dated 18.03.2021.
2. According to applicant on 18.03.2021 at
about 3:30 p.m., she was travelling along with her
frined Parikshit Sopan Deve on his motorcycle
bearing registration No.MH-43-BJ-4550 from Link
Road towards Borivali. She was pillion rider. They
-- 1 of 12 --
2/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
come near Brand Factory Signal (Chowk), Malad
(W), the backside of Hypercity Mall, one unknown
BMC vehicle Garbage Compactor bearing
registration No.MH-01-AN-897 (hereinafter
discussed as ‘offending vehicle’ for conveyance)
had come in high speed and in rash and negligent
manner and suddenly come in front of the
motorcycle and gave dash. Due to said accident
both of them sustained grievous injuries. Police
admitted her in Shatabdi Hospital for medical
treatment, then she was shifted to Dr. Purnaik
Hospital, Malad (W) and discharged on 23.03.2021
and incurred an expenses of Rs.1,56,590/-.
3. She further submitted that, because of the
said injury, she is suffering from pain, mental
agony, loss of earning, physical disablement,
shortening and expectations of life and she bore
the expenses of her treatment. Therefore, she
submitted this application and claiming just
compensation.
4. The Bangur Nagar Police Station had
registered the crime bearing No.98/2021 for the
offences punishable u/S.279, 337, 338 of IPC and
u/S.184 of M. V. Act against the driver of offending
vehicle.
5. The opposite party submitted written
statement at Exh.9 and opposed the application.
-- 2 of 12 --
3/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
According to opposite party no such accident took
place as alleged by the applicant and the rider of
motorcycle was negligent while driving his
motorcycle. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the
petition.
6. Considering the rival submissions of the
parties, my learned predecessor framed issues at
Ex.10, against which, I have recorded my finding
with reasons to follow as under :-
Sr.No. Issues Finding
1) Whether applicant proves
that on 18.03.2021 she being
a pillion rider, the driver of
Tata Motor BMC Garbage
Compactor motor vehicle
No.MH-01-AN-0897 drove his
vehicle in rash and negligent
manner resulted in causing
serious injuries to her?
Yes.
2) What was the age and
income of injured on the day
of accident?
Age 28
years,
income
Rs.3,11,41
8/-p.a.
3) Is applicant entitled for the
compensation as prayed and
from whom?
Yes, as per
final order.
4) What Award? As per final
order.
Reasons:-
7. In view of the pleading and issue, the
burden lies on applicant to prove the issue No-1
-- 3 of 12 --
4/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
and burden lies on opposite party to prove the
issue No.2. To discharge the burden, the applicant
has examined herself as Aw-1 at Exh.13, Aw-2
Pooja Rajendra Sonawane at Exh.24, Dr. Rajesh
Desai Aw-3 at Exh.31 and 43, and relied on
documentary evidence i.e. copy of FIR Exh.14,
report Exh.15, crime details form Exh.16, arrest
form Exh.17, driving licence of driver of offending
vehicle Exh.18, MLC papers Exh.19, medical and
pharmacy bills of Rs.8,414/- Exh.20 colly., authority
letter of Dr. Purnaik Hospital Exh.25, copy of
identity card of Aw-2 Exh.26, copy of Aadhar card
of Aw-2 Exh.27, account statement of Kotak
Mahindra Bank Exh.39, form No.16-B Exh.42, and
disability certificate Exh.44 etc.
8. The opposite party relied on evidence of
Pushparaj Tiwari as Dw-1 the driver of offending
vehicle, recorded at Exh.46.
As to Issue No.1 :
9. Heard counsel for applicant. Counsel for
opposite party remain absent. The counsel for
applicant also submitted written notes of
arguments at Exh.51. I have carefully gone through
the material placed before me and given thoughtful
consideration to the submissions of both sides. To
avoid the reputation, I am not discussing their
arguments in detail.
-- 4 of 12 --
5/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
10. The applicant testified that the said
accident took place because of the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle.
The opposite party cross examined this witness
but, failed to bring such material to show that the
evidence of Aw-1 is untrustworthy. All the
suggestions put up by counsel for opposite party
denied by the witness.
11. Hon’ble High Court in the case of Oriental
Insurance Company V/s. Smt. Sangeeta D.
Jamdade and Ors., 2005 (Bom.) TAC 233
(Bom.) wherein it has been held that, in order to
prove the negligence, certify copy of FIR, Spot
Panchanama are admissible in evidence. In case of
“Ranjeet & Anr Vs Abdul Kayam Neb & anr,
2025 SCC online SC 497” wherein Hon’ble Apex
Court held that, in motor accident claim
application, if applicant has filed copy of charge-
sheet, wherein driver of offending vehicle held
responsible, no further proof is required to prove
negligence.
12. Though Dw-1 testified that, the said
accident took place because of the negligence of
rider of motorcycle, his oral testimony is not
acceptable because he himself admitted that, the
charge-sheet has been filed in the court against
him for the said accident. The documents Exh.14 to
-- 5 of 12 --
6/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
Exh.17 shows that, it was filed against the Dw-1.
(In case No.1273 of 2021 the charge-sheet
submitted by applicant in that case at Exh.17)
There is no material brought by opposite party to
show that, the said charge-sheet quashed by
Hon’ble Bombay High Court. As the proceeding is
summary in nature and strict rules of Indian
Evidence Act/BSA is not applicable to MACP
proceedings, therefore, considering oral testimony
of applicant and documents as discussed above, I
am satisfied that applicant discharged the burden
and opposite party failed to discharge the burden.
Hence, I have recorded my findings accordingly.
As to issue Nos.2 to 4 -
13. In view of the answer to the issues, the
applicant is entitled for the compensation. The
applicant is entitled for compensation under
various heads as under.
Actual Medical Expenses :
14. The counsel for applicant argued that, the
applicant lost original bills of the hospital,
therefore, she submitted duplicate bills, the
applicant sustained grievous injury of fracture of
lower 3rd shaft of left humerus, surgery and ORIF
was done and she spent Rs.1,56,591/- etc.
-- 6 of 12 --
7/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
15. The applicant has examined AW2. She
testified that Riddhi Salvi was admitted in their
hospital. One Dr. Bharat M. Gala issued treatment
papers of the applicant, it shows that the applicant
sustained injury of transverse displaced angulated
fracture of distal 1/3 rd shaft humerus, nail/plate
distal half shaft of humerus is seen, the fracture
fragments are in good alignments. However, the
applicant failed to prove the medical expenses bill.
The applicant has not examined treating doctor or
billing clerk of Dr. Purnaik Hospital, Aw-2 not
deposed about photocopy of the bill. Therefore, she
is not entitled for said bill of Rs.1,56,591/-.
16. However, she submitted bills of Rs.8,414/-.
The bills are original, therefore, admissible in
evidence, hence she is entitled to Rs.8,414/- under
this head.
Special diet and conveyance expenses -
17. The applicant testified that she had spent
Rs.10,000/- each for conveyance and special diet.
However, not submitted a single bill, nor produced
prescription of doctor about special diet.
Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the
applicant, Rs.5,000/- would be just and lawful
compensation for special diet.
18. The applicant is resident of Malad. She was
treated at Purnaik Hospital at Malad, record shows
-- 7 of 12 --
8/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
that twicely she visited Purnaik hospital for follow
up treatment. Considering this fact, I am of the
view that, Rs.3,000/- would be just and lawful
compensation for conveyance. That means the
applicant is entitled for total Rs.8,000/- under this
head.
Loss of income during treatment-
19. The applicant testified that because of the
said accidental injury, she was unable to attend her
job up to 5 months, she was in service with
Singapore International School, Mumbai and
earning salary of Rs.29,380/- per month. In support
of the claim, the applicant has submitted copy of
salary slip, as Singapore International School is not
Government school, therefore, mere filing of salary
slip would not sufficient for the applicant. The
applicant has not examined any witness from
Singapore International School to show that really
applicant was working in said school and earning
said salary. Admittedly she has submitted copy of
her income tax Form No.16 part B Exh.42 wherein
it shows that the applicant received salary of
Rs.1,64,004/-, Form No.16 part B for AY 2021-22
the salary income is shown of Rs.3,11,418/-.
However, none of these documents disclosed the
name of employer. Therefore, I am not considering
salary slip as a document of income proof.
-- 8 of 12 --
9/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
20. Assuming that she was working in said
school and salary slip of applicant is admissible in
evidence. Perusal of salary slip, it shows that the
applicant was non teaching staff, still applicant has
to prove that because of the said injury, she was
unable to attend her job. The applicant failed to
submit and prove her leave details. Therefore, her
claim for loss of income during treatment is not
acceptable. In other words the applicant is not
entitled for compensation under this head.
Pain and suffering and loss amenities in life
and disability and loss of future income :
21. The applicant is claiming compensation for
pain and suffering, disability and for loss of
amenities in life and future expenses etc. She
deposed about the injuries sustained by her as
discussed above. Her evidence is supported by
treatment paper of Dr. Bharat Gala as discussed
above. As applicant had sustained fracture injury,
she is entitled for compensation under this head.
22. So far as disability is concerned, the
applicant testified that she has sustained 32%
permanent partial disability. In support of her
claim, she examined Dr. Rajesh Desai who certified
that he examined the applicant on 19.10.2022. She
sustained fracture of lower 3rd shaft of left
-- 9 of 12 --
10/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
humerus, surgery of ORIF of fracture using plate
and screw was performed and he assessed 39%
disability. According to him, the applicant suffering
disability of restriction of left shoulder rotation by
20% x 3 = 6%, restriction of left shoulder extension
20% x 3 = 6%, restriction of left elbow flexion 20%
x 3 = 6%, lifting and placing over head objects
specially if slightly behind is difficult = 9%,
difficulty in combing and pleating the hair = 9%
and combing the mobility and coordination 18+18
(90-18) /90 = 32%, weakness from left upper limb,
difficulty in carrying weights 20% x 3 = 6%, 32+6
(90-32) /90 = 36%, she suffer from pain left upper
arm mildly interfering with function 3%, total 39%
permanent partial disability.
23. Considering the evidence of Aw-4, it
appears that, the applicant has not sustained any
occupational disability. There is no straight jacket
formula provided for compensation for pain and
suffering and loss of amenities of life. It depends
on facts and circumstances and injuries sustained
by the victim. In case in hand, as per the record,
the applicant was serving as a non teaching staff.
Considering the nature of injury of fracture, as
Sec.164 of M. V. Act provided Rs.2,50,000/- as a
maximum compensation for grievous injuries,
therefore, in my view, the applicant is entitled for
the said amount under this head. That means the
-- 10 of 12 --
11/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
applicant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of
amenities of life.
24. As discussed above, the applicant appears
to be working as a non teaching staff, the
documents Exh.42 shows that she was working as
Executive assistant, therefore, I am of the view that
considering the nature of injury sustained by
applicant, it is not occupational disability. I have
already held in earlier paragraph that, the
applicant is entitled for compensation of
Rs.2,50,000/-, therefore, considering said fact, I am
of the view that the applicant is not suffering from
any occupational disability, therefore, she is not
entitled for any compensation for disability and
loss of future income as claimed.
25. In view of above discussion, the applicant
is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,66,414/-
rounded upto Rs.2,66,500/- (Rupees Two Lakh
Sixty Six Thousand Five Hundred only) inclusive of
NFL amount. The opposite party do pay this
amount. Hence, I have answered the Issue
accordingly.
26. In view of all these facts and the quantum
of compensation coupled with the fact of prevailing
rate of interest given by all the Nationalized banks,
in my view, the rate of interest @ 7.5% p.a. would
-- 11 of 12 --
12/12 MACP No. 1274 of 2021
be just and reasonable. Accordingly, the same is
granted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order :-
ORDER
1. Application is partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
2. The opposite party do pay Rs.2,66,500/-
(Rupees Two Lakh Sixty Six Thousand Five
Hundred only) inclusive of NFL amount, to the
applicant with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date
of application, till actual realisation of the entire
amount.
3. The applicant is hereby directed to inform the
opposite party about her bank account details
within 30 days from the date of order. In view of
the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Parminder Singh Vs. Honey Goyal, 2025 0SSC
Online SC 567, the opposite party is hereby
directed to deposit the compensation amount in the
bank account of applicant directly.
4. Award be drawn up accordingly.
Dictated and pronounced in open court.
(A. A. Ghaniwale)
Member, C.R. No.7
Date :25.08.2026 MACT, Mumbai
Uvg*
-- 12 of 12 --