Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Dandidhar Deka And 4 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 9367 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Oriental Insurance Company Ltd vs Dandidhar Deka And 4 Ors on 11 December, 2025

                                                                 Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010133752023




                                                          undefined

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

                        Case No. : MACApp./261/2024

         ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
         A CENTRAL GOVT. UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT
         GUWAHATI, GS ROAD ,ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007 REPRESENTED BY
         THE DEPUTY MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI,
         GUWAHATI 781005



         VERSUS

         DANDIDHAR DEKA AND 4 ORS.
         S/O LATE MATHURA DEKA RESIDENT OF RANGIA TINIALI, WARD NO. 7,
         PO AND PS RANGIA, DIST KAMRUP , ASSAM 781354

         2:RAKHI DEKA
          D/O DANDIDHAR DEKA
         RESIDENT OF RANGIA TINIALI
         WARD NO. 7
          PO AND PS RANGIA
          DIST KAMRUP
         ASSAM 781354

         3:KRITIMA DEKA
          D/O DANDIDHAR DEKA
         RESIDENT OF RANGIA TINIALI
         WARD NO. 7
          PO AND PS RANGIA
          DIST KAMRUP
         ASSAM 781354

         4:KRISHNA MANDAL
          S/O NARAYAN MANDAL
         RESIDENT OF RANGIA TINIALI
         WARD NO. 4
                                                                          Page No.# 2/4

             PO AND PS RANGIA
             DIST KAMRUP
             ASSAM 781354

            5:RUP KUMAR DAS
             S/O KANAI DAS

            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KATAJHAR PATHAR
            PO KATAJHAR
            PS AND DIST BARPETA ASAM 78131

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MS. R D MOZUMDAR, MS. C MOZUMDAR,MR. S P SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : MR S C PANDIT, M BEGUM (R-4,5),MD H R AHMED(R-4,5)




                                  BEFORE
              HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

                                        ORDER

Date : 11-12-2025

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Ms. R.D. Mozumdar. Also heard S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent nos. 4 & 5.

2. The present appeal has been filed u/s 173 of the M.V. Act against the judgment & award dated 19.01.2023 by the learned Member, MACT, Nalbari in MAC Case No. 109/2018.

3. The appellant/insurer has filed the appeal mainly on the ground that the alleged accident took place beyond the permit route of the vehicle and therefore was clear violation of the policy condition. Therefore, the liability could not have been saddled on the appellant.

4. The appellant has also taken another ground that the income of the deceased was taken at Rs. 9,000/- per month which is very high and excessive Page No.# 3/4

inasmuch as the deceased was not working at the time of the accident as she had already been terminated from service and further the income was not proved by the claimant before the Tribunal. In view of such discrepancies, the appellant being aggrieved has come before this Court.

5. Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for respondent/claimant as well as Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for respondent no. 5/owner of vehicle have submitted that the distance from the place of occurrence to the Barpeta Road Center has not been proved before the Tribunal inasmuch as it was only the claimant himself who had deposed that the place of occurrence was 40 kilometers away from the Barpeta Road Center. It is stated that this was a mere assumption on the part of the claimant who was examined as PW-1. In fact, the insurer/appellant has not adduced any evidence to prove the distance between the place of occurrence and the Barpeta Road Center. The insurer/appellant has only exhibited the permit, which states that the permit is valid upto a radius of 22 kilometers from the Barpeta Road Center. Besides this document, no other evidence is adduced to prove the distance.

6. Upon going through the pleadings as well as the Trial Court Records, this Court is of the view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Tribunal on this point alone, since this is the main ground taken by the appellant in this appeal.

7. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal to take fresh evidence on the aspect of the distance between the Barpeta Road Centre and the place of occurrence. The parties shall be given liberty to adduce any evidence either documentary or oral evidence in order to prove or disprove the same. The Tribunal shall then arrive at a finding after the evidence is adduced. The learned Tribunal shall also give an opportunity to the claimant to prove the Page No.# 4/4

income of the deceased.

8. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 30.01.2026.

9. The Tribunal shall proceed with the case as directed above, on the aspect of distance and the income of deceased and re-assess the compensation and liability.

10. The Registry shall also send back the Trial Court Records. The appellant may be allowed to take back the statutory deposit with accrued interest if any.

11. The MAC Appeal stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant