Page No.# 1/7 vs Bulen Bania And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 4698 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/7 vs Bulen Bania And 2 Ors on 20 August, 2025

                                                                           Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010124192014




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:11057

                          THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                          Case No. : MACApp./110/2014

           BHABEN SWARGIARY @ CRITICAL
           S/O SRI DEBESWAR SWARGIARY, VILL. TIPUKIAL, P.O. SARAIMORIA, P.S.
           BOGINADI, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.



           VERSUS

           BULEN BANIA and 2 ORS.
           S/O SRI PRAFULLA BANI, VILL. and P.O. MOIDAMIYA, P.S. NORTH
           LAKHIMPUR, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.

           2:MD. SHAWKAT ALI

           S/O MD. GULZAR ALI
           VILL. and P.O. MOIDAMIYA
           P.S. NORTH LAKHIMPUR
           DIST. LAKHIMPUR
           ASSAM.

           3:RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

            HAVING ITS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE A MUMBAI
            REGIONAL DIVISIONAL AND BRANCH OFFICE AT SEVERAL PLACES
           INCLUDING ONE OF THE BRANCH AT ANIL PLAZA
            5TH FLOOR
            REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL / DIVISIONAL MANAGER
            5TH FLOOR
            ANIL PLAZA
            ABC AT GUWAHATI-78100

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.D R DEKA, MR. K K DUTTA,MS N J DAS,MR.J
TALUKDAR,MR.M PATHAK
                                                                     Page No.# 2/7

Advocate for the Respondent : MRA K AHMED, MR.H MAHANTA,MR.J ALAM,MS.M

SAIKIA(R-3),MR.R GOSWAMI(R-3)

BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

Advocates

For the Appellant : Mr. K.K Dutta

For the Respondent No.3 : Mr. R. Goswami.

           Date of Hearing               : 20.08.2025
           Date of Judgment              : 20.08.2025


                         JUDGMENT &ORDER(ORAL)

The present appeal petition under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 has been filed by the claimants/ appellants challenging the judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed by the MACT No. 3 Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Appeal./1738/2009.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K.K Dutta and learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurer, Mr. R. Goswami.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant as claimant had filed the claim case under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 before the MACT Kamrup at Guwahati praying for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident which occurred on 26.11.2008 at Lamugoan on the National Highway 52 under Boginadi Police Station. The owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle B/R No. AS-07-A-9324(Specio ST)were Page No.# 3/7

impleaded as respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The claim was registered as MAC Case No, 1738/2009 before the learned member, MACT No. 3 Kamrup Guwahati. All the opposite party contested the case by filing their written statements.

4. That after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, the learned tribunal passed an award for Rs. 2,40,000/- (two lakhs forty thousand) only, vide judgment dated 23.12.2013 as compensation to the claimants/appellant and granted interest on the awarded amount at 6 % per annum from the date of filing the case till realization of the payment to be paid by the opposite party/respondent No. 3.

5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 passed by the Member MACT No. 3 Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC No. 1738/2009, the appellant/claimant has come before this Court on the ground that:-

i) the learned tribunal failed to give any reasons or justification for giving such low compensation under medical expenses, loss of earning and pain and suffering and also for not giving any compensation for loss of amenities of life.

ii) that the learned tribunal was not justified in awarding a compensation of only Rs. 2,40,000/- to the claimant who had sustained grievous injurious and had also suffered permanent disabilities to the extent of 40 %.

iii) that the Exhibit No. 47 and 48 pertaining to permanent disabilities were not taken into consideration by the learned tribunal more so when the said Page No.# 4/7

Exhibits were neither disputed nor any contrary evidence brought by the respondents.

iv) that the learned tribunal ignored all the other medical expenditure such as conveyance, lodging, fooding expenses of the victim and his attendants, cost of extra nourishment, the fees paid to the consulting Doctors through out the claimant's treatment at the nursing home as indoor patient from 26.11.2008 till 13.01.2009 and four Nos. of operation conducted on the claimant during the period.

v) that the tribunal failed to take into consideration the fact that the claimant/appellant could not continue his job anymore because of sustaining grievous injurious on his person, whereas he had been earning Rs. 5000/- per month as in-charge of a restaurant at Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh and is now unemployed. The learned tribunal came to a finding that the claimant used to earn Rs. 5000/- per month at the time of the accident. And therefore, the learned tribunal should have made reasonable assessment of the compensation on the basis of the grievous injurious sustained by the claimant and the papers and documents filed in support thereof for arriving at a just and reasonable compensation.

vi) that the leaned tribunal has not taken into consideration the future treatment and medical expenses of the claimants/appellant and has granted medical expenses strictly as per the voucher submitted by the claimant only and granted only Rs. 1,86,566/-taking a very technical approach. Whereas, the apex court in a catena of cases has said that fixing the amount of compensation involves some guess work and certain Page No.# 5/7

hypothetical consideration and some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of injurious and treatment undergone by the claimant.

6. In view of the grounds as mentioned above learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the impugned judgment and award is too low and unjust and improper and as such prays that the same may be enhanced. Learned counsel relies on the case of RAJ KUMAR VRS AJAY KUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 1SCC 343 to support his contentions.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/Reliance General Insurance Company has fairly submitted that the court may enhance the award in accordance with law and has produced a joint calculation before this Court during the course of hearing to assist the Court in granting the award.

8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel and has perused the pleadings as well as the Trial Court Records. It is seen that the permanent disability certificate had been exhibited by the claimant/appellant before the learned Tribunal showing 40% permanent disability. However, the tribunal held that the said certificate was not duly proved by examining the doctor who issued the certificate. Hence, the tribunal came to a finding that the claim of the appellant/claimant that he sustained permanent disability due to the accident has not been established. In the case of RAJ KUMAR (Supra) the Supreme Court has held that the tribunals should realize that the treating doctors are mostly very busy and their practice and patients would suffer if they have to spend their days in the tribunal giving evidence about past patients. The apex court further held that in cases where the disability certificates are not contested by the respondents they may be marked by consent, thereby Page No.# 6/7

dispensing with the oral evidence. Similarly, in the present case, the Exhibit 47 and exhibit 48 had not been disputed by the respondents/opposite parties before the Tribunal.

9. This appeal petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 23.12.2013 is quashed and set aside. The claimant/appellant is entitled to compensation as calculated herein:-

Permanent Disability: 40% Monthly Income of the injured: :Rs. 5,000/-

Future loss of income @ 40% of Rs.5,000/- :Rs. 2,000/- (As per Pranay Sethi Case reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680) Age of Injured: 32 years at the time of accident Multiplier: 16 (as Per Sarla Verma Case reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121) Assessment of loss of future earning on account of permanent disability as per Raj Kumar Vrs Ajay Kumar (supra):

a. Total Yearly Income Rs. 7,000/- (i.e, 5000+2000) X 12 = Rs. 84,000/- b. Total Compensation Rs. 84,000/- X 16 + Rs. 13,44,000/-

1. Total Loss of Income:30% of Rs. 13,44,000/- =Rs. 4,03,200/-

2. Medical Expenditure = Rs. 1,86,566/-

3. Attendants Charges = Rs. 48,000/-

4. Conveyance/Transportation/ Nourishing food/ Special diet = Rs. 50,000/-

5. Pain, Shock, suffering and Mental Agony = Rs. 1,00,000/-

6. Loss of Enjoyment of Life and amenities = Rs. 50,000/-

7. Loss of expectation of Life = Rs.50,000/-

Page No.# 7/7

Total =Rs. 8,87,766/-

(Rupees eight lakhs eighty seven thousand seven hundred and sixty six)

10. The Respondent No.3/Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd is directed to pay the aforementioned awarded amount to the claimant/appellant as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. till its realization within a period of 90 days from the date of this judgment.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant