The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhago Ram Boro And 3 Ors on 11 December, 2025

                                                                      Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010045112021




                                                               undefined

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

                           Case No. : MACApp./74/2021

         THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
         A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. REP. BY ITS
         REGIONAL MANAGER, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-7.



         VERSUS

         BHAGO RAM BORO AND 3 ORS.
         S/O- LATE GARGA RAM BORO, R/O- VILL.- WARD NO. 4, CHITRANAGAR,
         P.S. TANGLA, DIST.- UDALGURI, BTAD, ASSAM, PIN- 784521 AND PRESENT
         ADDRESS- C/O- SRI MONMOHAN KALITA, H/NO. 34, BYE LANE 3 (R),
         JOYANAGAR CHARIALI, MANDIR PATH, JAWAHARNAGAR, KHANAPARA,
         GUWAHATI-22, DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.

         2:PRABHU AGARWAL
          PROPRIETOR OF M/S. PRABHU AGARWAL
          8 NO. SETHI TRUST BUILDING
          G.S. ROAD
          BHANGAGARH
          GUWAHATI
          DIST.- KAMRUP(M)
         ASSAM
          PIN- 781005. (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01/DD-3044).

         3:TIRTHA SUTRADHAR
          S/O- SRI KHAGEN SUTRADHAR
          R/O- VILL.- PANERYHAT
          P.O. PANERYHAT
          P.S. PANERY
          DIST.- UDALGURI
          BTAD
         ASSAM
          PIN- 784523. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01/DD-3044).
                                                                            Page No.# 2/7


            4:THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

             MOTOR TP HUB
             GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE
             G.S. ROAD
             DISPUR
             GANESHGURI
             GUWAHATI
             ASSAM. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-17-5530)

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA,MR. B K GOSWAMI

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R B BORA, MR. T DEURI (R-3),MR S NEOGI (R-3),MR. V
SHARMA (R-3),MR. R GOSWAMI (R-4),MS. P BORTHAKUR (R-4),MR. V SHARMA (R-2),MR S
NEOGI (R-2),FOR CAVEATOR




                                  BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

                                          ORDER

Date : 11-12-2025

11.12.2025

This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 19.01.2021 passed by the learned Member, MACT No.3, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati in MAC Case No.1510/2016 by the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.K. Goswami as well as Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

3. The main ground taken by the appellant is that there was a head on collision between the motor cycle being driven by the claimant/respondent No.1 and the alleged offending vehicle Dumper bearing registration No.AS-0/DD-3044. But the learned Tribunal without considering Page No.# 3/7

the contributory negligence of the claimant/respondent No.1 directed the appellant, Oriental Insurance company to pay the entire award.

4. Another ground taken by the appellant is that the Tribunal had come to a finding that there is no loss of income but has indirectly awarded compensation under head of disability considering the monthly income of the claimant which is not legally sustainable.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that it was an admitted position before the Tribunal that the claimant/respondent No.1 was a subject teacher of a Government school and he was receiving salary and he was still working without any loss of income. However, the learned Tribunal has assessed compensation under head of disability at Rs.15,82,200/- by applying multiplier and considering the monthly income of the claimant. It is submitted that such assessment of compensation indirectly under the head of disability is not legally sustainable.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following cases in support of his contentions:-

1. RajKumar vs Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC

343.

2. Bijoy Kumar Dugar vs Bidyadhar Dutta and Others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242

3. United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs R. Lalhmingliana and Another reported in (2005) Sup GLT 198.

7. Relying on the above submissions and authorities, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and the award of compensation under the head of disability may be quashed by this Court. It is also prayed that the compensation should be apportioned Page No.# 4/7

between the two vehicles as the instant case was an accident of head on collision between the alleged offending vehicle and the motor cycle being driven by the claimant/respondent and the driver of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 submits that there was no negligence on the part of the claimant/respondent No.1 and it is further submitted that the police reports also do not reflect any fault on the part of the claimant/respondent No.1 inasmuch as police report has only shown the registration number of the dumper vehicle as the offending vehicle. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 also states that he was severely injured in the accident and there was multiple fracture on his right leg and hand and operation was also conducted on his leg and hands. He had also undergone several treatments not only at GNRC Guwahati but also at Narayana Superspeciality hospital and also at Cygnus Orthocare hospital, New Delhi and Fortis Escorts Heart case Institute in Delhi. It is submitted that the claimant/respondent No.1 has not received any medical re-imbursement from the Government of Assam as all his original documents and vouchers are before this Court. The learned counsel therefore submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2021 in MAC Cae No. 1510/2016.

9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and has also gone through the TCR.

10. On perusal of the evidence of claimant/respondent No.1 who was examined as PW 1, it is seen that the claimant had stated before the Page No.# 5/7

Tribunal that he is a subject teacher and he is continuing his job. He stated that he is entitled to get medical allowances which is available to all Government employees. In his cross-examination, the claimant/respondent No.1 stated that he is still taking up classes in school from 9.30. AM to 3.00 PM and takes up to 2 classes of 45 minutes each.

11. PW 4 is one Ganesh Das who is a staff at the civil hospital Udalguri. He stated that he had issued the disability certificate showing the extent of disability to be 45%. However, no Doctor was examined by the claimant to prove the percentage of disability as the treating Doctor was not examined.

12. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under loss of income which is shown as nil in the impugned judgment and order. However, the Tribunal has assessed the permanent disability as 20% and has calculated the compensation on the basis of the monthly salary of the claimant and therefore calculated the same as loss of income indirectly.

13. In the case of Rajkumar(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the case of the claimant who was a clerk in Government service had concluded that in such a case there may not be any need to award any compensation under the head of 'loss on future earnings', if the claimant continues in Government service, though he may be awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities as a consequence of losing his hand. The Supreme Court further held that when a compensation is given under the head 'loss of future earnings', the need to award compensation under the head of loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may disappear and as a result only token or nominal amount may have Page No.# 6/7

to be awarded under the head on amenities or loss of expectation of life, as otherwise there may be a duplication in the award of compensation.

14. Further in the case of R. Lalhmingliana (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has provided categorically that under the heading "pecuniary loss", unless there is loss of income or expenditure towards medical treatment is proved, no compensation can be awarded by the Tribunal. In the cited case, the Tribunal had quantified certain amount of compensation being the loss of income on the basis of the last pay certificate of the claimant although the claimant had stated in his evidence that there was absolutely no loss of income as he is still serving in the capacity of UDC and the period for which he was on leave was earned leave and therefore, there was no loss of income. The Hon'ble Division Bench held that the Tribunal had made an error by holding that there was loss of income, more so when admittedly the claimant has not suffered any loss of income. The Court also held that the claimant was entitled only to compensation under the non-pecuniary heads i.e. loss of amenities; pain and suffering and medical expenditures.

15. In view of the clear settled position of law, this Court is of the view that the award of compensation of Rs.15,82,200/- under the head of disability needs to be interfered with by this Court. More so when it is an admitted position that the claimant/respondent No.1 has not suffered any loss of income and he was receiving his monthly salary as a Government employee. As a result, the impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2021 in MAC Case No.1510/2016 is modified to the extend as given below.

The amount of Rs.15,82,200/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Two Hundred) under disability head is quashed and set aside. The Page No.# 7/7

claimant/respondent No.1 shall be entitled only to Rs.5,42,130/-(Rupees One Five Lakhs Forty Two Two Thousand One Hundred Thirty) (The amount which has already been deposited by appellant and withdrawn) without any interest and without any riders.

16. In view of the prayer made by the claimant/respondent No.1, and not objected by the appellant, the Registry is also directed to release the original vouchers; cash memos and receipts to the claimant/respondent No.1 and thereafter send back the TCR to the learned Tribunal.

17. The appeal is disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant