57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC Priya Soparkar IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.4075 OF 2019 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2022 The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Through its Divisional Manager …Appellant/ Applicant Versus Sangita Suresh Mali and ors. …Respondents Ms. Priyesha Patel i/by Mr. Nitesh Bhutekar, for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Rayan S. Pawar, for the Respondents. CORAM: R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED: 17th JANUARY, 2026. PC:- 1. By consent of both sides, heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This Appeal takes exception to the judgment and award dated 1st April, 2019 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition (MACP) No.777 of 2017, whereby it claimed to be alleged that grant of compensation of Rs.8,57,584/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. p. 2 PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Digitally signed by PRIYA RAJESH SOPARKAR Date: 2026.01.20 10:24:02 +0530 57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) submits that the Tribunal has committed error in accepting the involvement of the bus in the occurrence of the accident. It is her submission that in the written statement, specifically issue has been raised with regard to the non-involvement of the bus in the said accident. She argued that there is no independent evidence to indicate that the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident. In this regard, she made reference to the death certificate, which according to her, indicates that though the cause of death is mentioned as accidental death, it cannot be assumed that the death has been caused on account of the injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident. She further submitted that the Claimants have failed to lead any evidence, more particularly, evidence of the eye-witness in order to prove the facts from occurrence of the accident and involvement of the bus therein. On the point of quantum, it is submitted that the Tribunal has erred in accepting the income of the deceased at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per month, without any proof for the same. On these amongst other contentions, she seeks setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 4. Learned counsel for the original Claimants supported the impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the Claimants are entitled for enhancement of the compensation, and without filing any Appeal or cross-objection, such enhancement can be granted. 5. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Nareshkumar and ors. reported in AIR p. 3 57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC 2020 SC 4424, the learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently opposed the said contentions by pointing out that in absence of any evidence being led by the Claimants before the Tribunal, this is not a fit case for grant of enhancement. 6. The Claimants are required to prove the factum of occurrence of the accident on probability, and the same can be proved on the basis of police papers/charge-sheet. Admittedly, in respect of the accident, first information report came to the lodged on the same day. The report was lodged against the driver of the S.T. bus. As admitted by the driver before the Tribunal, on 18th June, 2017, he alongwith the bus was taken to the police station, and thereafter, he was produced before the Court. Further, there is no dispute that on conclusion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the driver of the bus. All these facts clearly indicate the involvement of the bus in the occurrence of the accident. Unlike criminal trial involvement and negligence of driver of bus need not be proved strictly. The evidence on record makes case of Claimants’ probable. 7. In so far as the income of the deceased is concerned, it was open for the Tribunal, even in absence of leading any evidence, to consider the notional income. The notional income accepted by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.5,000/- is not excessive. Similarly, computation of compensation has been done in accordance with settled principles. 8. As far as the contention of the counsel for the Respondents/Claimants with regard to the enhancement of compensation, there is absolutely no material placed before the p. 4 57 FA 91-22 WITH IA.DOC Tribunal in order to accept the same for enhancement of the compensation. 9. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following order:- ORDER (i) First Appeal stands dismissed. (ii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the deposited amount alongwith accrued interest thereon. (iii) The statutory amount be transmitted to the Tribunal alongwith accrued interest thereon. The parties are at liberty to withdraw it as per Rule. (iv) Record and proceedings be sent back to the Tribunal. 10. In view of the disposal of the First Appeal, the Interim Application also stands disposed of. (R. M. JOSHI, J.) {