Bombay High Court: Motor Vehicles Act compensation for bodily injury does not require proof of permanent disability

The Bombay High Court allowed an appeal by a woman injured in a 1996 road accident near Karla, where a tempo-trax travelling the wrong way struck the jeep in which she was a passenger. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alibag had found the tempo-trax driver negligent but dismissed her compensation claim entirely, holding her injuries were not of a kind entitling her to compensation since she produced no certificate of permanent disablement. Justice S.M. Modak held this conflated two different provisions: Section 142 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines categories of permanent disablement for no-fault liability under Section 140, but Section 165 -- which constitutes the Tribunals -- empowers them to inquire into claims for 'bodily injury' generally, whether temporary or permanent.

Her unchallenged medical certificate showed a sutured lacerated wound, hematoma and abrasions, and that she could not attend her normal duties for a month -- enough to qualify as a compensable bodily injury. Relying on R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (1995) 1 SCC 551 on pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads of damages, the Court held that while loss of income could not be assessed without disability proof, compensation for pain, suffering and expenses was still due, and awarded Rs. 25,000 as then permissible under no-fault liability.