MSRTC · BUS ACCIDENTS · MAHARASHTRA BLOOD ON THE HIGHWAY

Abstract

MSRTC runs over 16,000 buses every day across Maharashtra, connecting millions of people in villages and small towns.¹ But for decades, these same buses have been killing the very people they serve. Between 2015 and 2024, more than 2,132 passengers died and over 9,600 were injured in MSRTC-related accidents.² This article asks a simple question: whose fault is it? The answer involves drivers, the government, broken roads, and even passengers themselves. It examines legal responsibilities through court judgments and law, and ends with practical steps to stop these deaths.³

1. Introduction

On 15 April 2023, a bus full of young musicians from Mumbai fell into a gorge near Khopoli on the old Mumbai-Pune highway. Twelve people died. All were between eighteen and twenty-five years old. They were coming back from a performance. They never made it home.

This was not a rare event. Bus accidents in Maharashtra happen so often that they barely stay in the news for more than a day. MSRTC — the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation — was set up to give ordinary people affordable and safe travel. It was built with a constitutional promise under Article 39(b): public resources should serve the public good. But for millions of passengers, it has become a gamble with their lives.⁴

Every time there is a bad accident, the blame game starts. Union leaders say the roads are terrible. Ministers say the drivers were careless. Management says the buses are old. Nobody actually fixes anything. Families of victims spend years in courts just to get basic compensation.

And the next accident is already being set up somewhere on a potholed highway.

This article asks one clear question: who is really responsible for MSRTC bus accidents in Maharashtra, and what needs to change? The answer, backed by data and court rulings, is that the blame is shared — among drivers, MSRTC management, the state government, the agencies that build and maintain roads, and sometimes even passengers. This article examines each of these in turn, looks at what the law says, and suggests real reforms.⁵

2. A Decade of Accidents: What the Numbers Say

The data from 2015 to 2024 tells a story that should alarm every person in Maharashtra. In total, 2,132 people died and over 9,600 were injured in accidents where MSRTC vehicles were at fault. The numbers got worse every year — except in 2020, when COVID lockdowns kept buses off the road. By 2024, there were 307 major accidents, 284 deaths, and 1,301 injuries in a single year. Total compensation paid over the decade crossed ₹64 crore, but most families waited years before seeing a single rupee.

Source: NCRB Road Accident Reports 2015–2024;⁶ MSRTC Annual Reports; Maharashtra RTI responses.⁷

An RTI application filed by Nagpur activist Abhay Kolarkar confirmed from MSRTC’s own records that 1,234 passengers died and 8,502 were injured just between 2021 and 2024. In the same period, nearly 1.97 lakh MSRTC buses broke down — proof that the fleet is in serious trouble.⁸

These figures set the stage for the central legal question: across all the parties involved, who bears responsibility — and how much?

3. Who Is Responsible? A Legal Analysis

3.1 The Drivers: Negligence Behind the Wheel

Drivers are the most visible cause of accidents, but they are also the most overworked. A 2022 study by the Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies found that 68% of MSRTC drivers regularly work twelve to fourteen hours a day, well beyond the legal eight-hour limit. A tired driver is a dangerous driver — and the system creates that tiredness deliberately, because there are not enough staff and schedules must be kept.⁹

Maharashtra Traffic Police data shows that in 43% of fatal MSRTC accidents between 2018 and 2024, the driver was overspeeding or driving rashly. In July 2018, a bus fell 500 feet into a gorge at Ambenali Ghat near Poladpur, Raigad. Thirty-three of thirty-four people on board died. The driver lost control on a bend he had taken hundreds of times before.¹⁰

Drunk driving was forensically confirmed in the 1 July 2023 Samruddhi Expressway fire in Buldhana, where a bus overturned, caught fire, and the emergency exit door was locked. Twenty-five to twenty-six passengers burned to death — including three children. The driver had reportedly passed the pre-departure breath test at the depot, raising serious questions about how that test was conducted. Mechanical failures such as brake failure — as seen in a January 2024 accident on the Nashik-Pune highway where a runaway bus killed two motorcyclists — point to missed maintenance checks at the depot level.¹¹

MSRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, AIR 1997 SC 3280 — Supreme Court of India

The Supreme Court ruled that MSRTC cannot escape responsibility just because it was the driver who was reckless. As a public employer running a transport service, MSRTC has a duty of care that cannot be passed on to anyone else. This ruling is cited in thousands of accident compensation cases across Maharashtra.¹²

3.2 The Roads: Built to Kill

India has the highest number of road accident deaths in the world. Maharashtra is consistently in the top five states for road fatalities. A major reason is the appalling condition of roads — not just potholes, but missing barriers, faded lane markings, and ghat sections that were engineered without safety in mind.¹³

In 2022, the Bombay High Court took up Maharashtra’s pothole crisis on its own, without anyone filing a case, and issued firm orders to the PWD and municipal bodies.¹⁴ Official figures admit over 11,000 potholes on state and national highways as of 2023 — but citizens report far more. Potholes burst tyres, damage suspensions, and cause drivers to suddenly lose control.¹⁵

The ghat roads are especially dangerous. Kasara Ghat, Tamhini Ghat, Ambenali Ghat, and the old Mumbai-Pune highway have seen accident after accident. Crash barriers are missing or broken. There are no runoff lanes for buses whose brakes fail. A 2022 study found that over 61% of fatal accidents on Maharashtra state highways happen at night — largely because road markings have faded or were never painted properly.¹⁶

Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, (2003) 8 SCC 731 — Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that the government has a duty to keep public roads safe. When someone dies or is injured because of a dangerous road — a pothole, a broken barrier, no signage — the government body responsible for that road is legally liable. The Court linked this to Article 21 of the Constitution: the right to life includes the right to safe roads.¹⁷

3.3 The Government: The Biggest Culprit

The Maharashtra government owns MSRTC completely. It sets the rules, controls the budget, and appoints the leadership. Which means when MSRTC fails, the government cannot pretend it had nothing to do with it.

MSRTC has been losing money for over twenty years. Its accumulated losses crossed ₹16,000 crore by 2024.¹⁸ The government is required to reimburse MSRTC for concessional fares given to students, senior citizens, and freedom fighters — but it has not. As of 2023, the outstanding amount owed by the government to MSRTC was over ₹8,200 crore. That is money that could have bought new, safer buses. Instead, MSRTC runs on buses that are falling apart.

An RTI response revealed that about 4,800 buses — nearly 30% of the entire MSRTC fleet — are over twelve years old. Over 1,200 buses have crossed the fifteen-year fitness limit prescribed under state transport regulations, after which they are not supposed to be on the road. Fleet modernisation was announced in 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022. Nothing substantial happened. Procurement has been delayed, cancelled, or mired in corruption allegations each time.¹⁹

Political interference has also gutted MSRTC’s management. Top positions are given to retired IAS officers with political connections, not transport professionals. Safety protocols get ignored when they conflict with keeping political schedules or hitting revenue targets. The 111-day employee strike in 2021–22 — the longest in MSRTC’s history — happened because the government refused to pay drivers properly or improve their working conditions. The Supreme Court had to step in multiple times just to keep talks going.

State of Haryana v. Santra, (2000) 5 SCC 182 — Supreme Court of India

A public transport authority cannot use lack of money or “systemic problems” as an excuse to avoid responsibility for negligence. Running a public service creates a higher duty of care — not a lower one. This applies directly to MSRTC and the Maharashtra government.²⁰

3.4 Passengers: A Small but Real Part of the Problem

It would not be fair to ignore the role passengers sometimes play. During festivals, passengers crowd buses well beyond safe capacity and ignore conductor instructions. People stand in doorways or lean out of windows — especially on ghat roads where a single jolt can throw someone out. Some passengers distract or even threaten drivers mid-journey. Heavy bags placed badly can shift the balance of a bus on a curve. None of this causes accidents on its own, but it adds to the risk in situations that are already dangerous. Under Indian tort law, such behaviour may amount to contributory negligence, which courts may take into account when apportioning liability.

3.5 What the Law Says

The legal framework covering MSRTC accidents is actually very strong — the problem is enforcement.

• Article 21 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life, and courts have held this includes the right to safe public transport.²¹
• Article 39(b) states that public resources must serve the public good — a promise MSRTC was built on.²²
• The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Section 166) gives accident victims the right to claim compensation before a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.²³
• The Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 sharply increased penalties for drunk driving, overspeeding, and using a mobile phone while driving.²⁴
• The Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 legally obligates MSRTC to run a safe and efficient service.²⁵

All of this exists on paper. None of it is enforced consistently.

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121

This Supreme Court ruling set the standard formula for calculating compensation in road accident cases — covering lost income, future earnings, and other losses. It is widely used in MSRTC accident cases across Maharashtra to ensure families receive fair amounts.²⁶

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (Constitution Bench)

A five-judge bench enhanced compensation standards, adding 40% for future income prospects for victims under forty years of age. This directly increases what MSRTC’s insurer must pay in fatal accident claims involving young passengers.²⁷

3.6 The Oversight Gap

Many agencies are supposed to keep MSRTC safe. The Maharashtra Transport Department should inspect MSRTC regularly. The Motor Vehicles Inspector corps is supposed to check every bus for fitness. The MSRTC Board should govern the organisation. The state legislature should ask hard questions. None of them actually do their job properly. CAG reports have found that fitness certificates are issued for buses that were never properly examined.¹⁸ The Board meets infrequently and has never publicly taken action over safety failures. The legislature barely discusses road safety. The result: because everyone is supposedly in charge, no one actually is.

4. Conclusion and Reforms

The honest answer to “whose fault is it?” is: everyone’s — but not equally. Reckless drivers, an underfunded corporation, a government that makes promises it does not keep, roads built with corrupt money, a legislature that looks away, and passengers who ignore safety — all share blame for the 2,132 deaths recorded in the last decade. But the Maharashtra government, as the sole owner of MSRTC and the authority responsible for the roads, carries the heaviest burden. It has the power to fix this. It has the money — if it chooses to spend it on lives instead of politics. It has the legal obligation. Every year it does not act, more people die.

The following reforms can change this:

1. Pay MSRTC the ₹8,200 crore owed in concession dues. Without money, MSRTC cannot buy safe buses or hire enough drivers.
2. Replace all buses over twelve years old within three years. New buses must have GPS tracking, speed governors, dashcams, and fatigue sensors.
3. No driver should work more than eight hours in a day. Electronic records should enforce this automatically, with penalties for violations.
4. Create an independent Road Safety Authority that reports to the legislature, not the Transport Minister, and can force both MSRTC and road agencies to act.
5. Make PWD and NHAI officials personally responsible when known road defects cause accidents. The Bombay High Court’s 2022 pothole orders should become permanent law.
6. Treat driver welfare as a safety issue — better pay, proper rest facilities, regular health checks. An angry, exhausted driver is a dangerous driver.
7. Publish all MSRTC accident data publicly within 24 hours of each incident, with cause analysis within 60 days. Transparency is the first step to accountability.²⁸

The dead cannot be brought back. But every person who boards an MSRTC bus today — a student going to college, a farmer heading to the city, a child travelling home — deserves to arrive safely. That is not a luxury. In a democracy, it is the bare minimum the government owes its people.

5. Reference(S):

A. Cases

• MSRTC v. Kailash Nath Kothari, AIR 1997 SC 3280 — Supreme Court of India.
• Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Laxman Iyer, (2003) 8 SCC 731 — Supreme Court.
• Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 — Supreme Court.
• National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 — Constitution Bench.
• Rajasthan SRTC v. Kiran Devi, (2019) 4 SCC 423 — Supreme Court.
• State of Haryana v. Santra, (2000) 5 SCC 182 — Supreme Court.
• Bombay High Court — Suo Motu PIL W.P. (PIL) No. 55/2022 (Pothole deaths, Maharashtra).
• MSRTC v. Bhagwat Vithal Bhosale, 2021 (3) Mh.L.J. 415 — Bombay High Court.

B. Statutes

• Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (No. 59 of 1988).
• Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019 (No. 32 of 2019).
• Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 (No. 64 of 1950).
• Constitution of India — Articles 21, 39(b), 300A.
• National Road Safety Policy, 2010 — Ministry of Road Transport and Highways.
• Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

C. Reports and Data

• Ministry of Road Transport and Highways — Road Accidents in India, 2015–2024.
• NCRB — Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India, 2015–2024.
• CAG of India — Report on MSRTC Operations, 2021.
• Maharashtra PWD — Annual Road Condition Survey, 2022–23.
• Indian Road Safety Campaign — Night Accident Study, Maharashtra, 2022.
• Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies — MSRTC Driver Working Conditions Study, 2022.
• RTI responses by Abhay Kolarkar — MSRTC fleet age and accident data, 2023–24.
• MSRTC Annual Reports 2015–2024 (www.msrtc.gov.in).
• Press Trust of India (PTI) — MSRTC accident database, 2015–2024.

D. Academic Sources

• P. K. Sarkar, Law of Motor Vehicles (Eastern Book Company, 2020).
• Avtar Singh, Law of Torts, 11th ed. (Eastern Book Company, 2021).
• WHO Global Status Report on Road Safety, 2023.
• Economic and Political Weekly, ‘Public Transport in Maharashtra: A Crisis Foretold’ (March 2022).
• Indian Journal of Transport Management, Vol. 46 (2022): ‘MSRTC Operations and Safety Performance’.

Footnote(S):

¹ Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Road Accidents in India (2023).

² National Crime Records Bureau, Accidental Deaths & Suicides in India (2015–2024).

³ MSRTC Annual Reports (2015–2024).

⁴ Constitution of India, art 39(b).

⁵ Motor Vehicles Act 1988, s 166.

⁶ NCRB (n 2).

⁷ MSRTC Annual Reports (n 3).

⁸ RTI Data by Abhay Kolarkar (2023–24).

⁹ Maharashtra Institute of Labour Studies, Driver Working Conditions Study (2022).

¹⁰ Maharashtra Traffic Police Data (2018–2024).

¹¹ Press Trust of India, Accident Reports (2023–2024).

¹² MSRTC v Kailash Nath Kothari AIR 1997 SC 3280.

¹³ Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (2023).

¹⁴ Bombay High Court, Suo Motu PIL No 55/2022.

¹⁵ Maharashtra PWD, Road Condition Survey (2022–23).

¹⁶ Indian Road Safety Campaign, Night Accident Study, Maharashtra (2022).

¹⁷ Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v Laxman Iyer (2003) 8 SCC 731.

¹⁸ CAG of India, Report on MSRTC (2021).

¹⁹ RTI Data (n 8).

²⁰ State of Haryana v Santra (2000) 5 SCC 182.

²¹ Constitution of India, art 21.

²² Constitution of India, art 39(b).

²³ Motor Vehicles Act 1988, s 166.

²⁴ Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act 2019.

²⁵ Road Transport Corporations Act 1950.

²⁶ Sarla Verma v Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121.

²⁷ National Insurance Co Ltd v Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

²⁸ WHO, Global Status Report on Road Safety (2023).