Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr.Divisional Controller, Raigad vs Chandrakant Ravji Dore

2026:BHC-AS:23333
1 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1431 OF 2025
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation
through Divisional Controller, Raigad,
Division Office, Ramwadi, Tal.Pen, Dist.Raigad. Appellant
versus
Chandrakant Ravji Dore, Age 25 years,
Occ.Labour, R/o.Post Devmal, Post Pabal,
Tal.Pen, Dist.Raigad. Respondent
_______
Mr.Dhananjay Dnyaneshwar Rananaware for Appellant.
Mr.Sanjay Ghaisas for Respondent.
_______
CORAM: AARTI SATHE , J.
th
DATE: 9 June 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
th
1. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 15 January
2024 (hereinafter referred to as the (`impugned judgment and award’) passed by
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alibag (hereinafter referred to as `the MACT’)
whereby the Applicant (Respondent herein) has been awarded an amount of
Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filing the Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.27 of 2023 till realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows :
(a) Respondent is the victim of motor vehicular accident which
Digitally signed by
MANISH
SURESHRAO
THATTE
Date: 2026.06.11
13:42:04 +0530
th
occurred on 29 December 2022 at about 9.45 a.m on Pen-Khopoli Road, Tal.Pen,
MANISH
SURESHRAO
THATTE
Dist.Raigad. On the date of accident, the Respondent was travelling on a
motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-06-CG-3417. He was going on Pen-
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

2 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
Khopoli road and when he reached within the vicinity of village Dhamni at

Kanhere phata, a state transport bus of the Appellant Corporation bearing No.MH-
20-BL-2714 approached from the opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of
the Respondent. It is the Respondent’s contention that the Respondent sustained
serious injuries on account of the aforesaid accident and he had to be admitted in
st
Mhatre Hospital, Pen till 31 December 2022. It is further his contention that he
incurred Rs.25,000/- as hospital charges towards treatment of his injuries sustained
in the accident;
(b) At the time of the accident, Respondent was 24 years old and
was doing labour work and earning Rs.40,000/- p.a. It is the Respondent’s
contention that on account of injuries suffered due to the accident, the Respondent
suffered permanent disability and could not carry out his work. The Appellant is
the registered owner of bus bearing No.MH-20-BL-2714 and it is the
Respondent’s contention that on account of rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the Appellant Corporation’s S.T bus, the Respondent sustained injuries
and hence the Appellant was liable to pay the compensation to the Respondent;
(c) The FIR was lodged in respect of the aforesaid accident and
spot panchanama was drawn in respect of the aforesaid accident;
th
(d) On 15 February 2023 the Respondent filed Motor Accident
Claim Petition No.27 of 2023 before the MACT under the provisions of Section
164 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the Act’) and claimed compensation along with
interest as per the provisions of the Act from the date of application till realization.;
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

3 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
(e) The impugned judgment and award was passed on the

aforesaid Motor Accident Claim Petition No.27 of 2023 in favour of the
Respondent awarding a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- including no fault liability (NFL)
together with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of claim till realization to the
Respondent.
3. It is in the backdrop of the above facts I proceed to decide the present
appeal.
4. Heard learned counsels for the Appellant and the Respondent. Learned
counsel for the Appellant Mr.Dhananjay Rananaware has submitted that the
impugned judgment and award has been passed without appreciating the facts and
law and the quantum as awarded by the impugned judgment and award is excessive
and arbitrary. It is his primary contention that the nature of injury which was
sustained by the Respondent, had not been proved before the MACT and hence
the provisions of Section 164 of the Act could not be applied. He further
contended that the impugned judgment and award had erroneously recorded that
the Respondent was earning Rs.40,000/- p.a at the time of accident. He also
contended that the accident had not occurred on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the Appellant Corporation, but on account of negligent
driving of the Respondent. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel
for the Appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and award needs to be
set aside and the appeal be allowed.
5. Per contra , learned counsel for Respondent Mr.Sanjay Ghaisas
submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT was a well
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

4 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
reasoned award and did not suffer from any infirmity and is required to be

confirmed. It was his submission that the claim amount awarded by the MACT
was the correct amount and was justifiable in the present case. He also submitted
that the evidence adduced by the Respondent about occurrence of the accident and
the Respondent sustaining injuries had not been challenged during the cross-
examination by the Appellant. He further submitted that the written statement of
the Appellant filed before MACT did not dispute the factum of accident and
involvement of the S.T bus owned by the Appellant Corporation in the accident.
He further submitted that the copy of FIR, spot panchanama, injury certificate,
discharge card issued by Mhatre Hospital where the Respondent had received
medical treatment, had also been placed on record and the said evidence was not
displaced by the Appellant before the MACT, thereby proving that the Respondent
had indeed suffered injuries on account of the accident caused by the offending bus
owned by the Appellant Corporation. Learned counsel for the Respondent further
drew the attention of this Court to the categorical finding as recorded by the
MACT that, the Respondent had sustained fracture injuries to his back bone and
was admitted to Mhatre Hospital and the same evidence had not been shaken in
the cross-examination. He further sought to place reliance on the finding as
recorded by the MACT on the evidence/deposition of one Dr.Sathe which proved
that the Respondent had indeed sustained 20% permanent disability due to
accidental injuries. It was therefore his submission that uncontroverted evidence
which has been placed before the MACT, clearly proved that the Respondent had
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

5 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
suffered the permanent disability as pleaded by the Respondent, and hence the

findings of the MACT were correct and well reasoned.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent also submitted that the claim
which was filed before the MACT was filed under Section 164 of the Act, which
categorically provides that in any claim for compensation under the aforesaid
section, the claimant would not be required to plead or establish that the death or
grievous hurt in respect of which the claim has been made, was due to any
wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle
concerned or of any other person, and the only requirement under the section is
that the claimant has met with motor vehicular accident. He further submitted
that sub-section 1 of Section 164 clearly stipulates the amount of compensation in
respect of grievous hurt which is capped at Rs.2,50,000/- and in respect of death
on account of accident the compensation is Rs.5,00,000/-. He therefore submitted
that present case falls squarely within the provisions of Section 164 of the Act and
the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of claim
till realization, has been rightly awarded by the MACT to the Respondent.
7. Learned counsel for the Respondent also sought to place reliance on
the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company
1
Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar and another , to submit that any proceeding under
Section 163-A of the Act does not open to the insurer, to raise the defence of
negligence on the part of victim and compensation has to be paid as per the
structured formula as stipulated therein.
1 (2019)12-SCC-398
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

6 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC

8. I have gone through the records, impugned judgment and award and
also considered the submissions made by learned counsels for Appellant and the
Respondent, and I am of the view that the impugned judgment and award is a well
reasoned award, passed after taking into consideration all the facts and evidence led
before the MACT. Further, in the facts of the case, considering that the claim was
filed under the provisions of Section 164 of the Act, which stipulates amount of
compensation to be paid in respect of grievous hurt caused on account of an
accident and no negligence needs to be proved by the claimant but only the
occurrence of the accident is a sufficient condition, I am of the view that the
judgment and award has been passed in consonance with Section 164 of the Act. I
come to the aforesaid decision on the basis of following reasons :
(i) At the very outset since the Claim was filed under Section 164
of the Act, it would be convenient to reproduce the provision of the aforesaid
section :
164. Payment of compensation in case of death or grievous hurt, etc.—(1)
Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time
being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor
vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or
grievous hurt due to any accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, a
compensation, of a sum of five lakh rupees in case of death or of two and a half
lakh rupees in case of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may
be.
(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be
required to plead or establish that the death or grievous hurt in respect of which
the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the
owner of the vehicle or of the vehicle concerned or of any other person.
(3) Where, in respect of death or grievous hurt due to an accident arising out of
the use of motor vehicle, compensation has been paid under any other law for the
time being in force, such amount of compensation shall be reduced from the
amount of compensation payable under this section.]
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

7 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
On a plain reading of the aforesaid section I am of the view that the

submission as canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondent is of much
substance that in the proceeding filed under Section 164 of the Act, the Claimant
does not have to plead or establish that the death or the grievous hurt in respect of
which the claim has been made, was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default
of the vehicle or the owner of the vehicle or any other person. The only
requirement is that the accident has been caused and thereafter the owner of the
vehicle or the authorized insurer is liable to pay the aforesaid amount as stipulated
in the Section. Further, I am also in agreement with the contention as canvassed by
the learned counsel for Respondent that sub-Section 1 of Section 164 stipulates the
compensation to be awarded in the case of death or grievous hurt respectively. I am
of the view that in the present case the compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- has been
rightly made by the MACT in consonance with the provisions of sub-Section 1 of
Section 164 of the Act. Further it is not disputed that the accident had occurred
and the same was on account of rash driving of the driver of the S.T bus owned by
the Appellant Corporation;
(ii) Reliance placed by learned counsel for the Respondent on the
case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sunil Kumar and another
(supra) is also apposite to the facts of the present case inasmuch as though the said
judgment has been rendered under the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act, the
st
same stands incorporated with effect from 1 April 2022 in the substituted section
164 of the Act. The language as provided under Section 163-A of the Act now
st
finds place in Section 164 of the Act with effect from 1 April 2022 and hence the
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

8 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited

(supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case wherein it has been categorically
held that any proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act does not open for the
insurer the defence of negligence on the part of victim. The relevant paragraphs of
the aforesaid judgment are reproduced below :
8. From the above discussion, it is clear that grant of compensation under Section
163-A of the Acton the basis of the structured formula is in the nature of a final
award and the adjudication thereunder is required to be made without any
requirement of any proof of negligence of the driver/owner of the vehicle(s)
involved in the accident. This is made explicit by Section 163-A(2). Though the
aforesaid section of the Act does not specifically exclude a possible defence of the
insurer based on the negligence of the claimant as contemplated by Section
140(4), to permit such defence to be introduced by the insurer and/or to
understand the provisions of Section 163-A of the Act to be contemplating any
such situation would go contrary to the very legislative object behind introduction
of Section 163-A of the Act, namely, final compensation within a limited time-
frame on the basis of the structured formula to overcome situations where the
claims of compensation on the basis of fault liability were taking an unduly long
time. In fact, to understand Section 163-A of the Act to permit the insurer to raise
the defence of negligence would be to bring a proceeding under Section 163-A of
the Act on a par with the proceeding under Section 160 of the Act which would
not only be self-contradictory but also defeat the very legislative intention.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question arising by holding that in a
proceeding under Section 163-A of the Act, it is not open for the insurer to raise
any defence of negligence on the part of the victim.
(Emphasis supplied)
2
Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Gohar Mohammed Vs. U.P. SRTC has
reiterated that the claimant is not required to plead or establish any wrongful act or
neglect or default of the owner of vehicle or driver or any other person for payment
of compensation under Section 164 of the MV Act. Relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid decision is reproduced below: -
48. The aforesaid provision has been brought where the claimant(s) is not
required to plead or establish any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner(s)
of the vehicle(s) or of any other person for payment of compensation. Therefore,
sub-section (1) has been given overriding effect limiting the liability to pay
2 (2023)4-SCC-381
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

9 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
compensation to the tune of Rs 5 lakhs in case of death and Rs 2:50 lakhs in case
of grievous hurt to the legal heirs or to the victims), as the case may be. It is further
made clear that the compensation, if payable in any other law, then such amount is
required to be reduced from the amount of compensation payable under this
section, meaning thereby the legislative intent is clear that a person, who has
suffered with an accident must be compensated just and reasonably and the
victim(s)/family of the deceased must be paid for the bodily injury or loss of life
caused by an accident by use of a motor vehicle at a public place.

(iii) I am also of the view that over and above the settled legal
position on the issue of compensation insofar as claims filed under Section 164 of
the Act are concerned, in the facts of the present case, the MACT has appreciated
the evidence on record and has come to a reasoned finding on the basis of FIR, spot
panchanama, injury certificate, discharge card issued by Mhatre Hospital and
permanent disability certificate issued in favour of the Respondent, which shows
that the accident had taken place and the same had taken place on account of
involvement of offending S.T. bus owned by the Appellant Corporation. All these
evidences have been appreciated by the MACT and the same remained
uncontroverted in the cross-examination which was led before the MACT thereby
lending credence to the claim of compensation as made by the Respondent. I am
also in agreement with the contention as canvassed by the learned counsel for the
Respondent that the deposition of Dr.Sathe which proved that the Respondent had
indeed sustained 20% permanent disability due to accidental injury remains
uncontroverted and further the discharge summary also showed that the
Respondent had sustained fracture to D-12 vertebra. All these evidences which
have been appreciated by the MACT go to establish that the Respondent had
indeed suffered injuries and hence the argument sought to be canvassed by the
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::

10 of 10 901.FA.1431.2025.DOC
learned counsel for the Appellant, that the nature of injury was not proved before

the MACT requires to be rejected;
(iv) In my view, therefore, considering the settled legal position
insofar as provisions of Section 164 of the Act are concerned, and on a holistic
appreciation of the facts and evidence led before the MACT, it is crystal clear that
the impugned judgment and award has been passed on a proper appreciation of the
evidence and the facts of the case. I am further of the view that the amount
awarded in the impugned judgment and award is just and not exorbitant, and is
well within the parameters as stipulated under Section 164(1) of the Act, which
stipulates that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- has to be awarded to the claimant in
case of grievous hurt. The findings of the MACT, therefore, do not warrant any
interference by this Court.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent has submitted that 40% of the
amount awarded by the impugned judgment and award has been deposited by the
Appellant in the MACT. The Respondent is at liberty to withdraw the aforesaid
40% amount along with accrued interest thereon from the date of application till
realization. Further in respect of the balance amount of the compensation awarded
by the MACT vide impugned judgment and award, the Appellant shall pay the
said balance amount including NFL amount along with interest thereon @ 9% p.a
from the date of filing of the claim till realization to the Respondent within three
weeks from the date of uploading of this order.
10. The First Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
( AARTI SATHE , J.)
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 11/06/2026 14:02:11 :::