MACT Awards ₹77.96 Lakh to Driver Blinded in Kanjur Marg Highway Crash
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Mumbai has awarded Rs 77.96 lakh in compensation to a 32-year-old driver who suffered permanent blindness in his left eye after an SUV rammed his vehicle on the Eastern Express Highway service road near the Metro Depot at Kanjur Marg. Presiding Officer A. A. Ghaniwale directed Tata AIG General Insurance Company Ltd to pay Rs 77,96,600 along with 7.5 percent annual interest from the date of the claim application until realisation in an order pronounced on October 1, 2026.
The incident took place at around 1:15 am on October 5, 2022, when the victim, Suhas Bhagwan Jagadale, was returning home from work towards Vikhroli. A Mahindra & Mahindra SUV rammed his vehicle from behind along the service road. Following the crash, Jagadale was admitted to Fortis Hospital in Bhandup with a traumatic optic nerve injury, multiple facial lacerations, and a fracture to his right clavicle, resulting in complete vision loss in his left eye.
Jagadale was employed as a driver and earned around Rs 24,800 per month after professional tax deductions. He submitted that the permanent injury left him entirely incapable of continuing his occupation. While medical disability certificates evaluated his physical disability at 30 percent, the tribunal ruled that his occupational disability stood at 100 percent, citing Supreme Court precedents regarding injuries that directly destroy a claimant's ability to carry out their specific livelihood.
In calculating the award, the tribunal granted Rs 66.66 lakh towards the loss of future earning capacity, applying a 40 percent addition for future prospects alongside a multiplier of 16 based on Jagadale's age. The tribunal also approved Rs 10 lakh for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities of life, as well as Rs 1.30 lakh towards actual medical expenses.
Addressing the question of liability, the tribunal observed that the occurrence of the collision was uncontested and that the insurer had brought no evidence showing that the SUV driver was uninvolved or blameless. The order noted that strict proof of negligence is not mandated in such cases, concluding that oral and documentary records sufficiently proved the issue.
Tata AIG had resisted the claim by alleging that the SUV driver did not hold a valid driving licence at the time of the crash. The tribunal rejected this contention, pointing out that the insurer neither examined any witnesses nor submitted a chargesheet to substantiate the breach, whereas the licence on record was valid. The tribunal declined Jagadale's additional claims for future medical expenses and scooter damage citing lack of supporting evidence.
