Bombay High Court · 2026-06-09
MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THR.DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, RAIGAD vs CHANDRAKANT RAVJI DORE
- Citation / case number
- FA/1431/2025
- Court
- Bombay High Court
- Petitioner
- MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION THR.DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, RAIGAD
- Respondent
- CHANDRAKANT RAVJI DORE
Judgment text excerpt
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. DATE: 9th June 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 15 th 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 MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE occurred on 29th December 2022 at about 9.45 a.m on Pen-Khopoli Road, Tal.Pen, Date: 2026.06.11 13:42:04 +0530 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 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 th