Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Biswajeet Paul And Anr on 11 November, 2021
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010008372015
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./23/2015
MRS. ANITA DUTTA and 3 ORS,
W/O LATE PRATUL DUTTA
2: ROHIT DUTTA
S/O LATE PRATUL DUTTA
3: MISS URBI DUTTA
D/O LATE PRATUL DUTTA
4: MRS. RINA DUTTA
W/O LATE GANESH DUTTA
ALL ARE R/O JATIA
KAHILIPARA ROAD
GUWAHATI-06
KAMRUP
ASSAM
APPELLANT NO.2 and 3 BEING MINORS ARE TO BE REPRESENTED BY
THEIR MOTHER
CLAIMANT NO.
VERSUS
BISWAJEET PAUL and ANR,
S/O SRI DINESH PAUL OF TURA , P.S. TURA, DIST. WEST GARO HILLS,
MEGHALAYA OWNER OF TRUCK NO. AS-01/T-2244
4:THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE
ULUBARI
G.S. ROAD
Page No.# 2/11
GUWAHAI-7
KAMRUP
ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER INSURER OF
TRUCK NO. AS-01/T-2244 and MOTORCYCLE NO. AS-01/J-712
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BARUAH
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R J BARUA (R-1)
Linked Case : MACApp./379/2016
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A 25/27 ASAF ALI
ROAD
NEW DELHI 110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI 7
REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER.
VERSUS
SMTI ANITA DUTTA and 4 ORS
W/O LATE PRATUL DUTTA
2:ROHIT DUTTA
S/O LT. PRATUL DUTTA
3:MISS URBI DUTTA
D/O LT. PRATUL DUTTA
4:SMT. RINA DUTTA
W/O LT. GANESH DUTTA
ALL ARE R/O JATIA
KAHILIPARA ROAD
GUWAHATI-6
KAMRUP
ASSAM.
5:BISWAJIT PAUL
S/O SRI DINESH PAUL
R/O TURA
P.S. TURA
DIST. WEST GARO HILLS
MEGHALAYA
OWNER OF TRUCK NO. AS-01-T-2244
Page No.# 3/11
------------
Advocate for : MR. S DUTTA
Advocate for : MR. K AGARWAL appearing for SMTI ANITA DUTTA and 4 ORS
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
Advocate for the Appellants :Mr. D. Saikia
Advocate for the Respondent No.1 :Mr. K. Agarwal
Advocate for Oriental Insurance Company :Mr. S. Dutta
Date of Hearing :01.11.2021
Date of Judgment :11.11.2021
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. K. Agarwal,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel
representing the Oriental Insurance Company.
2. Both the MAC Appeal being MACApp No. 23/2015 and MACApp No. 379/2016 based on
the same set of facts comprising the same issue, have been heard together and have been
taken up for final disposal by this common judgment and order.
3. The brief fact of the case of the appellant/claimant is that on 23.11.2004 at about 7:30
PM while the husband of the appellant no.1 Pratul Dutta was driving a motorcycle bearing No.
AS-01-J-7123 on the National Highway-37 a speeding truck bearing No. AS-01-T-2244 coming
in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the motorcycle in which the husband of the
appellant was travelling. As a result the husband of the appellant as well as the pillion rider
fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on his person. The husband of the
appellant was immediately taken to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati for better treatment.
After the accident one case was registered vide Palashbari P.S. Case No. 21/2005 under
Sections 279/304A IPC. At the time of accident the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured
with Oriental Insurance Company Limited.
4. The insurer of the two vehicles AS-01-T-2244 and AS-01-J-7123 Oriental Insurance
Page No.# 4/11
Company submitted written statement wherein it is stated that no any accident took place on
23.11.2004 at about 7:30 PM on 37 National Highway and, as such no case was registered in
this regard. It is also denied that the driver who at the relevant point of time drove the
vehicle No. AS-01-T-2244 had a valid and effective driving licence. It is further alleged that
the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased i.e. the driver of the
motorcycle AS-01-J-7123 and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. O.P. No. 1, the owner of the offending truck AS-01-T-2244 had also submitted a written
statement and admitted that he is the registered owner of the said vehicle which used to ply
in the state of Assam, Meghalaya, West Bengal, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for carrying goods.
While the said vehicle was plying between Tura to Guwahati on 23.11.2004 the police of
Bijoynagar stopped the truck at Bijoynagar and seized the papers of the truck along with the
vehicle. On being asked by the driver of the truck, the police informed that the truck was
involved in an accident causing death of a person. Though the driver denied the involvement
of the said truck, the police did not listen to him. In fact, the truck was not involved in any
accident on 23.11.2004 as alleged. The said truck was illegally stopped on 23.11.2004 while
plying on the road and the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 14.12.2004 and
the said truck was released after few days. It was further stated that at the time of the
alleged accident the truck bearing No. AS-01-T-2244 was insured with Oriental Insurance
Company Limited. So if any liability arises that will be borne by the insurer of the said vehicle
and prayed to exonerate OP No. 1 from the liability of paying any compensation.
6. The learned Member, MAC Tribunal has framed following issues on aforesaid pleadings-
I. Whether the alleged accident took place on 23.11.2004 on N.H.-37, Bor-Tezpur at
about 7:30 PM due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle AS-01-T-
2244 (Truck)?
II. Whether the victim Pratul Dutta died as a result of the said motor vehicle
accident?
III. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation for the death of Late
Pratul Dutta in the said accident. If yes, what will be the just and reasonable amount
of compensation?
Page No.# 5/11
IV. Who amongst the opposite-parties is liable to pay the compensation to the
claimant?
Issue No. 1 and 2.
7. Both Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are taken-up together as both are inter-linked to each other.
8. PW-1 is the appellant/claimant examined herself as PW1 who has reiterated the same
thing whatever she has stated in her claim-petition regarding the death of her husband in a
motor vehicle accident on 23.11.2004 and in support of the fact, the claimant has exhibited
some documents i.e. Ext.-1 is Accident Information Report (Form-54), Ext.-2 is Post-mortem
Examination Report. Ext.-3 is the H.S.L.C. Certificate of the deceased. Ext.-4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are
the documents relating to business of her husband and Ext.-10 are the documents relating to
landed properties.
9. Another witness examined by the claimant/appellant is Hemanta Kalita as PW-2 who
deposed in his evidence that on 23.11.2004 at about 7:30 PM he was standing in front of a
shop at Bor-Tezpur then he saw a motor-cycle coming on left side of the road from the
direction of Guwahati and proceeding towards Chhaygaon at a normal speed. When the
motorcyclist reached in front of the shop then a truck bearing No. AS-01-T-2244 coming from
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor-cycle and fled away from the
place. PW-2 rushed to the place of accident and found that the rider of the motor-cycle was
grievously injured. Immediately the injured was taken to Guwahati for better treatment but
later on he came to know the name of the injured was Pratul Dutta and he died in the
hospital during treatment.
10. PW-3 is Jogen Kalita. He has also supported the fact of accident causing death of Pratul
Dutta due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle AS-01-T-2244. It reveals
that PW-1 was not an eye-witness to the incident. She has replied in her cross-examination
that her husband was not the owner of the motor-cycle in which he was travelling on the day
of the accident. She did not furnish any medical documents regarding treatment of her
husband at Down Town Hospital and she has also not submitted any document showing the
business of her deceased husband.
11. Cross-examination of PW-2 is not available in the record and no order was passed by
Page No.# 6/11
the learned Tribunal to show that his evidence was expunged. PW-3 has replied in his cross-
examination that he has not lodged any FIR in connection with that accident. He knew the
deceased prior to the accident. About 20/30 persons used to reside near the place of
accident. After the accident the truck had fled away from the place.
12. The plea of respondent no. 1 i.e. owner of the vehicle is that no any accident occurred
involving his vehicle bearing No. AS-01-T-2244 (Truck) causing the death of the husband of
the appellant Pratul Dutta. The Bijoynagar police illegally stopped the vehicle and seized the
documents of the said vehicle.
13. As per Ext. 1- Accident Information Report a case was registered vide Palashbari P.S.
Case No. 21/2005 under Sections 279/304A IPC. Though copy of the FIR or seizure list or
charge-sheet is not available in the record but none of the respondents have challenged Ext.1
showing death of Pratul Dutta on 23.11.04 at Bor Tezpur under Palashbari P.S.
14. It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holding of a trial
for petition preferred under Section 166 of the Act. Under Section 168 of the Act, a Claims
Tribunal holds an enquiry to determine compensation which must appear to it to be just.
Strict rule of evidence are not applicable in an inquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal as
was held in State of Mysore v. S.S. Makapur, reported in 1993 (2) SCR 943 by Hon'ble Apex
Court.
15. In Bimala Devi and Others v. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others,
reported in (2009) Volume 13 SCC 530, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Claims Tribunals
should not insist on strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular
manner and that taking holistic view of the matter, evidence should be examined on the
touch stone of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt.
16. The judgment of the Bimala Devi (supra) was relied on by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in its latest judgment in Parmeswari v. Amir Chand , reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635 and
KusumLata v. Satbir (2011) 3SCC 646.
17. In N.K.V. Brothers (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Hon'ble Apex Court
observed " Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially, when truck and
bus driver operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as
Page No.# 7/11
has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases
based on the doctrine of res ipsaloquitar. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see
that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely
because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must
be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not
succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes".
18. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal proposition as well as from the background of
the case, it can be easily inferred that deceased Pratul Dutta sustained fatal injuries in the
alleged accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle
bearing no. AS-01-T-2244 (Truck). Hence issue nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the
appellant/claimant.
Issue No. 3 and 4.
19. Regarding income of the deceased, claimant/appellant has stated in her claim petition
that her deceased husband was a businessman, having transport business and grinding
factory and he had also income from agricultural land. In support of the fact she has
submitted some documents vide Ext.- 4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10.
20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that a
certificate issued by village headman has no legal sanction and there cannot be any interest
on future prospect. It is further argued that with a change in economy and the policy of
Reserve Bank of India, the interest rate has been lowered. In support of his submission
learned counsel placed reliance on some case laws -
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Champabati Ray and Ors. reported in 2021 (1) TAC
Kaushnuma Begum (Smt) and Others Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others
reported in 2001 (2) SCC 9.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cicilia Marbaniang and Ors. reported in 2009 (5) GLR
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kawllian Thanga and Ors. reported in 2007 (3) GLT
21. Learned counsel for O.P. No. 1 (owner of the vehicle) has submitted that there was not
even an iota of evidence to substantiate the claim of agricultural income as the land belongs
Page No.# 8/11
to the father of the deceased and there was no evidence that the deceased was having any
income from transport business.
22. It is further argued that notional income should be determined by considering the facts
and circumstances of each case and multiplier should depend on the age of the deceased.
23. In support of his submission, learned counsel cited following case laws-
State of Haryana and Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur and Others reported in (2003) 7 SCC
Laxmi Devi and Others vs. Mohammad Tabbar and Another reported in (2008) 12 SCC
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Shanti Devi and Others reported in
(2009) 4 SCC 355
Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Limited Vs. Vimla Devi (Smt) and Others reported in
(2009) 11 SCC 64
Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121
24. I have perused the documents submitted by the appellant/claimant side.
Ext. 5 is the certificate of entrepreneurship issued in the name of the deceased.
Ext.6 is the Registration Certificate of a vehicle AMU 2266 issued in the name of one
Samundra Narayan Das.
Ext.7 is a money receipt of selling a vehicle bearing no. AXA-2137 issued by one Parme
Bala Kalita in favour of the deceased Pratul Dutta.
Ext.8 is letter of sanction of loan amount by PNB to Pratul Dutta.
Ext.-9 is income certificate issued by Circle Inspector Palashbari Revenue Circle
regarding income of the claimants/appellants.
Ext.10 - Land documents of father of the deceased.
25. From the aforesaid documents vide Ext. 4,5,6,7 and 8 it cannot be ascertained that the
deceased was having grinding mill and he had also agricultural income from which he was
earning Rs. 25,000/- in a month.
26. Income certificate (Ext.-9) shows annual income of the claimant/appellant from
Page No.# 9/11
agriculture and business amounting to Rs. 1,20,000/- (One lakh twenty thousand). It does
not reflect the income of the deceased at the time of accident. Apart from that the person
who issued Ext.-9 was not examined to prove the fact in question. Hence, Ext.9 cannot be
taken into consideration in this case.
27. Admittedly the agricultural property i.e. the land belongs to father of the deceased. The
appellant/claimant has failed to produce any document to show that the deceased was having
income from the land of his father. Apart from that PW1 has admitted in her cross-
examination that after death of her father-in-law, her mother-n-law has maintained the said
agricultural land of her father-in-law.
28. Under such facts and circumstances of the case, income of the deceased be considered
under minimum rates of wages of the State of Assam at the time of accident. As per
Government notification, the minimum rates of wages of unskilled labour was Rs. 4772/-
around Rs. 5,000/- in the year 2004, which can be taken into consideration in this case.
29. According to the claimant, the age of her husband was 41 years at the time of
accident. As per post-mortem Report, the age of the deceased is shown as 40 years. To prove
the age of the deceased the claimant has also proved school certificate of her husband vide
Ext.3 which discloses that the deceased was 15 years of age in the year 1978. The incident
occurred in the year 2004. It transpires that the deceased was 41 years of age when the
accident took place.
30. As per the case of Sarla Verma Vs. DTC, [AIR 2009 (6) SC 121] the multiplier would be
14.
31. In the instant case, the deceased left behind his wife, one minor son, minor daughter
and his mother. As such the standard deduction towards personal and living expenses of
deceased is applicable as stated in the case of Sarla Verma (supra). Considering the aforesaid
mandate, in the instant case, since there is four numbers of dependents, 1/4 th of the income
of the deceased is required to be deducted with a presumption that had the deceased been
alive, he could have spent 1/4th for his personal and living expenses.
32. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi & Others , reported
in SLP (Civil) 25590 of 2014, it was observed that while determining the income of the
Page No.# 10/11
deceased in case of self employed or on a fixed salary an addition of 40% of the established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An
addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% when
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary
method of computation.
33. In the case in hand, the age of the deceased was 41 years when the accident took
place. So, 25% should be added alongwith his established income of Rs. 5,000/-. Hence,
monthly income of the deceased be considered as Rs. 5,000/- + 1,250/-=6,250/-
34. As per case of Pranay Sethi (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has fixed compensation
in case of death reasonable figures on conventional heads namely - loss of consortium, loss
of estate and funeral expenses should be Rs. 40,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/-
respectively.
35. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in the instant case, the computation of
compensation is awarded as follows -
A) Annual income of the deceased Rs.6250/-X 12 = 75,000/-
B) After deducting 1/4th of the annual income of the deceased, amount comes to = 56,250/-
C) After multiplied with multiplier, amount comes to = 56,250X 14=7,87,500/-
D) Funeral expenses - Rs. 15,000/-
E) Loss of Estate - Rs. 15,000/-
F) Loss of Consortium - Rs. 40,000/-
_________________
Total - Rs. 8,57,500/- (Eight Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand Five Hundred)
36. Regarding Driving Licence, the Insurance Company took the plea that the driver of the
offending vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving Licence at the time of accident.
In support of the fact one witness was examined.
37. D.W.-2 Gautam Patowary who is the insurance investigator, deposed in his evidence
that he had verified the Driving Licence of Munna Mahatoo, driver of the offending truck AS-
Page No.# 11/11
01-T-2244 at DTO office, Tuensang, Nagaland and found that original Driving Licence of the
driver of the truck was not issued from their office vide Ext.- A. and Ext.-B.
38. In his cross-examination, DW-2 has replied that the offending vehicle was insured with
Oriental Insurance Company. He had verified the Driving Licence of Munna Mahatoo from
DTO, Kamrup and Driving Licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was found valid at the
relevant time of accident.
39. Therefore, the plea taken by the Insurance Company is of no consequence. As such
Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Hence, issue no. 3 and 4
are decided accordingly.
ORDER
40. In the result, appeal is partly allowed with aforesaid modification, awarding Rs.
8,57,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand and Five Hundred) only with interest
thereon @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case. The OP /Oriental Insurance
Company is directed to make payment of the aforesaid amount within a period of 30 days
from the date of receipt of the order in the savings account of the claimant/ appellant No. 1
Anita Dutta through NEFT. Claimant is directed to furnish her bank details of any Nationalised
Bank to the OP/ Oriental Insurance Company for the necessary payment. It is made clear that
Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) be awarded for mother of the deceased. If any payment
made earlier by the Insurance Company be adjusted accordingly.
41. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) deposited be
returned to the appellant/ Insurance Company of MAC App 379/2016.
42. LCRs be returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
