Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 24.10.2026

Bombay HC: Standing on Bus Footboard Does Not Automatically Disqualify Passenger from Accident Compensation

The Bombay High Court has awarded ₹2,10,365 plus 7.5% annual interest to an injured bus passenger, holding that the Thane Municipal Transport (TMT) bus driver was primarily responsible for an accident while overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus.

Case overview

In Mohan Laxman Chavan v. Transport Manager, Thane Municipal Transport & Ors., the Court considered an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decision that had dismissed the claimant’s petition entirely. The Tribunal had concluded that the passenger alone caused the accident by standing on a crowded bus’s footboard.

The High Court disagreed. It found that the claimant did contribute to the risk, but the TMT driver failed to take adequate care while overtaking a stationary Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) bus. The Court apportioned negligence at 75% to the TMT driver and 25% to the claimant.

How the accident occurred

On 4 August 1998, Mohan Laxman Chavan boarded a crowded TMT bus near Castle Mills, Thane, after completing work at a bank. Because of the crowd, he could not move fully inside and stood on the footboard.

According to the claimant’s evidence, the conductor signalled the driver to proceed. While overtaking a stationary MSRTC bus, the TMT bus grazed it. Chavan’s hand struck the other bus and he was thrown from the moving vehicle. He was initially treated at Civil Hospital, Thane, and later admitted to Arogya Hospital for 12 days.

His injuries included a compound comminuted fracture of the right humerus and a Colles fracture of the left radius. A plate was fitted in his right arm, and he later produced evidence of physical disability.

Why the Tribunal’s finding was overturned

The Tribunal had relied on several factors to reject the claim: the claimant did not identify the registration numbers of either bus, no accident report was found in the transport authorities’ records, and the claimant had been standing on the footboard.

The High Court held that these factors did not justify rejecting the claim altogether.

Vehicle numbers were not essential in these circumstances

The Court accepted that the claimant had not recorded the registration numbers of the buses. However, it reasoned that a person who falls from a moving bus immediately after an accident cannot reasonably be expected to note vehicle numbers. It was sufficient that the claimant identified the vehicles as a TMT bus and an MSRTC bus.

The Court emphasized that motor accident claims are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, not the criminal-law standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Oral evidence explaining how the accident occurred could therefore be considered alongside police papers.

Absence of a report did not disprove the accident

The transport authorities’ witnesses stated that they had no report of an accident involving their buses on that day. The Court found that this absence could have different explanations, including a failure to report the incident. It did not conclusively establish that the accident had not occurred.

The passenger’s conduct was contributory, not exclusive negligence

The Court acknowledged that standing on the footboard was unsafe and that the claimant might not have fallen had he been inside the bus. This justified attributing some responsibility to him.

However, the Court found that the driver also had a duty to overtake safely. The TMT bus grazed a stationary MSRTC bus, showing that the driver had not exercised proper caution, whether because of speed, inattention, or inadequate clearance. The driver then continued ahead without taking the necessary precaution after the impact.

MSRTC bus driver not held liable

The Court upheld the finding that the MSRTC driver was not negligent. The MSRTC bus was stationary, and there was no evidence that it had been parked improperly or in a dangerous location. As a result, liability was not imposed on MSRTC.

Compensation awarded

Although the claimant produced a disability certificate assessing 30% disability, the Court declined to award compensation for future loss of earning capacity. The assessment was made nearly eight years after the accident, and there was no evidence showing how the disability affected his work. The claimant had also been promoted from Inspector to Senior Inspector.

Still, the Court awarded compensation for lost income during sick leave, medical treatment, future treatment, pain, and reduced comfort and amenities:

• Loss of income for three months: ₹32,169
• Future medical expenses: ₹15,000
• Medical bills: ₹16,716
• Arogya Hospital bills: ₹16,480
• Pain and suffering: ₹50,000
• Attendance charges: ₹10,000
• Loss of comfort and amenities: ₹50,000
• Conveyance charges: ₹10,000
• Special diet: ₹10,000

The total enhanced compensation was ₹2,10,365. The TMT Transport Manager and the Government of Maharashtra’s Director of Insurance were directed to pay the amount jointly and severally within 12 weeks, with 7.5% interest per year from the date of the claim petition until payment. Any no-fault compensation already received would be deducted.

Legal significance

The ruling reinforces that a motor accident claimant does not necessarily fail merely because they cannot provide a vehicle registration number or because an official accident record is unavailable. Courts must evaluate the complete evidence and determine whether the account is probable.

It also illustrates the principle of contributory negligence: a passenger’s unsafe conduct may reduce responsibility, but it does not erase the transport operator’s duty to drive safely. Here, the claimant’s footboard travel was a contributing factor, while the TMT driver’s unsafe overtaking was found to be the dominant cause of the accident.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com