Bodily Injury Under Section 165 MV Act Covers Both Temporary And Permanent Injuries Irrespective Of Disability Certification: Bombay High Court

"A bodily injury means injury of any kind to a person that may be temporary or permanent. It may attract hospitalization or may not attract. All injuries are covered." Bombay High Court, in a judgment dated 7th October 2026, held that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is empowered to award compensation for "bodily injury" under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, even in the absence of a permanent disability certificate.

A bench of Justice S. M. Modak observed that the statutory definition of bodily injury is comprehensive, encompassing any physical harm, whether temporary or permanent, and does not restrict the grant of compensation solely to cases involving permanent disablement.

Statutory Interpretation Of Bodily Injury

The appellant had challenged a 2005 Tribunal order that dismissed her claim petition in its entirety. The Tribunal had incorrectly reasoned that because the claimant suffered no permanent disablement and failed to produce hospital bills, the injury did not fall within the ambit of the MV Act. The High Court rejected this restrictive interpretation, noting that the legislative intent behind Section 165 is to provide relief for "causing bodily injury" arising out of the use of a motor vehicle, which includes injuries that may be merely temporary or require only short-term treatment.

Court Clarifies Scope Of Injury Claims

The court emphasized that the Tribunal erred by conflating the criteria for "no-fault liability" under the former Sections 140 and 142 of the Act with the general scope of inquiry for bodily injury. While permanent disablement is a specific category, it is not a prerequisite for claiming compensation for physical harm. The court further noted that the appellant's medical evidence, including the certificate from Dr. Ghodke, clearly established the existence of a contused lacerated wound requiring sutures, which clearly constitutes actionable bodily injury.

Need For Bifurcation Of Damages

Referring to the Supreme Court's established position in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., the bench reiterated that damages must be bifurcated into pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. The court held that even where specific medical bills are insufficient or absent, the Tribunal is obligated to assess compensation for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities under the head of non-pecuniary damages.

Assessment Of Pecuniary And Non-Pecuniary Losses

The court observed that while the appellant failed to produce exhaustive bills to support the claimed expenses, the fact of the accident and subsequent treatment for one month was substantiated. The judge highlighted that "the sutures can be put only when injury is of such kind and it is for uniting of parts," dismissing the contention that minor injuries like hematoma or abrasions warrant a total dismissal of a claim petition.

Court Rejects Dismissal Of Claim For Lack Of Disability

The bench remarked that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that there were no injuries simply because there was no permanent disablement. By acknowledging the trauma and the inability of the appellant to attend her normal duties for a month, the High Court determined that she was entitled to compensation under established legal principles, even in the absence of a disability certificate.

Final Directions And Award Of Compensation

Concluding the matter, the Court set aside the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Alibag. Recognizing the limitation of the evidence regarding specific expenses, the court awarded a global sum of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant. This amount, payable by the respondent insurer, is to be provided along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of the petition until the date of realization, to be disbursed within eight weeks.

Date of Decision: 07 October 2026