( 1 ) 904 fa 1722.18 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1722 OF 2018 THE DIV. CONTROLLER, M.S.R.T.C, DIV. AHMEDNAGAR VERSUS AJINATH MANOHAR MOHITE ….. Advocate for Appellant : Ms. Raktate Chaitali P. h/f. Deshmukh Bhausaheb S. Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Wagh Umakant U. ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 07.07.2026 Per Court :- 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/M.S.RT.C. against the judgment and award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmednagar in M.A.C.P. No.13 of 2012 dated 10.10.2007. The claimant's claim was allowed on the ground that he had sustained 100% permanent disability due to head injuries sustained in the vehicular accident. 2. The learned advocate for the appellant pointed out pleadings, evidence, grounds of objections of appeal and the reasons and finding in the impugned judgment. He submitted that neither the treating doctor nor any other medical practitioner, who could have deposed regarding the permanent disability as well as the functional permanent disability, was examined by the claimant to prove that he had sustained 100% functional disability. Lastly, it is 2026:BHC-AUG:30069 ( 2 ) 904 fa 1722.18 prayed that the reasons and findings recorded in the impugned judgment are neither legal nor correct and are not sustainable in law. He prayed for setting aside impugned judgment. It was further pointed out that, by the order passed below Exhibit-31, the learned Tribunal had directed the claimant to examine an expert doctor to prove the permanent disability as well as the functional permanent disability. However, the claimant failed to comply with the said direction. 3. The learned advocate for the respondent/claimant submitted that the notional income of Rs.6,000/- per month was determined by the learned Tribunal. In support of his submission, he relied upon the Gazette of India published by the Ministry of Labour and Employment on 31.05.2010, wherein the monthly wages of Rs.8,000/- were fixed. He submitted that the doctor was not available for examination, and there is a report of the Bailiff to that effect when he was summoned to prove the claimant's disability certificate. He further submitted that the claimant had sustained 100% functional disability. However, no amount towards future prospects was awarded to the claimant, contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680. He submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed and that the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation in view of the law laid down by the ( 3 ) 904 fa 1722.18 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surekha w/o Rajendra Nakhate & Ors. v. Santosh s/o Namdeo Jadhav & Ors., (2021) 16 SCC 467, wherein it has been held that the Court is empowered to award just compensation even if the claimant has not preferred an appeal, provided that the compensation awarded is inadequate. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 4. On perusal of the record and proceeding with the reasons and findings recorded in the impugned judgment, it is evident that the claimant neither examined the treating doctor nor complied with the directions issued by the learned Tribunal to examine treating doctor for proving the permanent functional disability. However, the learned Tribunal overlooked all these aspects and held that the claimant had sustained 100% functional disability and awarded compensation accordingly. The disability certificate certifying 40% permanent disability on account of the head injury sustained by the claimant has not been proved by examining the doctor who issued it. Likewise, the claimant's alleged 100% functional disability was not proved by experts evidence. The directions issued below Exhibit-31 by learned Tribunal were not complied with by the claimant. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to determine the claimant's 50% functional permanent disability on the principle of pre- ponderence of the probability for the purpose of determining compensation. ( 4 ) 904 fa 1722.18 5. The claimant failed to prove his monthly income. Therefore, the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. However, as per the notification of Minimum Wages published in the official Gazette dated 31.05.2010, referred to above, the claimant's notional income ought to have been determined @ Rs.8,000/- per month. The claimant's functional permanent disability is assessed @ 50% only, the resultant loss of earning capacity would be Rs.4,000/- per month. The annual loss of income, therefore, comes to (Rs.4,000/- × 12) Rs.48,000/-. The claimant was 23 years of age at the time of the accident. By applying the appropriate multiplier of 18, the loss of income works out to (Rs.48,000/- × 18) Rs.8,64,000/-. 6. In view of the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant is entitled to an addition of 40% amount of compensation towards future prospects, which was not awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the compensation under the head of loss of future prospects is modified. On an addition of 40% towards loss of future prospects on the amount of Rs.8,64,000/- comes to Rs.3,45,600/-. On adding that it works out to (Rs.8,64,000/- + Rs.3,45,600/-) Rs.12,09,600/-. Adding the compensation earlier awarded under the other heads by the Tribunal, i.e., Rs.4,06,000/-, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of (Rs.12,09,600/- + Rs.4,06,000/-) Rs.16,15,600/- instead of Rs.17,02,000/- awarded by the ( 5 ) 904 fa 1722.18 learned Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal deserves to be reduced by (Rs.17,02,000/- − Rs.16,15,600/-) Rs.86,400/-. To that extent, interference with the impugned judgment and award is justified. A reduction in the compensation is of Rs.86,400/-. The said amount of Rs.86,400/- shall be refunded to the appellant/MSRTC, with accrued interest thereon and the remaining amount, together with the accrued interest, shall be paid to the respondent/claimant in accordance with law. As per the above calculation the Registry is directed to pay that deposited amount accordingly to both the parties. 8. The appeal deserves to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following order. O R D E R I) The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms and is accordingly disposed of. [SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.] mubashir