Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Durgaswar Chutia on 28 February, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010029122025
2025:GAU-AS:2236
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./51/2025
BRAJEN DEKA
S/O. LT. SURJA DEKA.
2: POMPY DEKA @ RITUMONI DEKA
D/O. SRI BRAJEN DEKA
BOTH ARE R/O. VILL.- CHINTA GAON
P/O. AND P/S. KALAIGAON
DIST. UDALGURI (BTAD)
ASSAM
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NORTH GUWAHATI
P/O. AND P/S. NORTH GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSA
VERSUS
DURGASWAR CHUTIA
S/O. SRI TUPIRAM CHUTIA, R/O. VILL.- BORKATHANI, P/S. HOWAJAN,
DIST.- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784169.
2:RATNA KANTA BORAH
S/O. LT THOGIRAM BORAH
R/O. VILL. BORACHUK
P/S. GOHPUR
DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI
ASSAM
PIN-784168.
3:THE REGIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
G.S. ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
DIST.- KAMRUP METRO
Page No.# 2/3
ASSAM
PIN-781005
Advocate for the appellant(s): Mr. SSS Rahman
Advocate for the respondent(s): X X
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
03.03.2025
Heard Mr. SSS Rahman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants.
2. This is an appeal preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 11.11.2024 passed in MAC
Case No.1437/2016 whereby the learned Member Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati had awarded a total compensation of
Rs.8,05,100/- to the claimants along with interest @9% per annum from the
date of filing of claim proceedings i.e. 14.06.2016.
3. The grounds of objection taken in the instant memo of appeal is as regards
the inadequacy of compensation. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants submitted that the deceased earned Rs.8000/- to Rs.10,000/- per
month. However, the learned Tribunal had based its compensation by holding
that income of the deceased was Rs.4000/- per month. The learned counsel
submitted that the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 being a beneficial legislation, the
Page No.# 3/3
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded a higher compensation.
4. This Court had duly perused the elaborate judgment passed by the learned
Tribunal wherein the learned Tribunal had duly taken note of the evidence so
adduced in detail. The learned Tribunal further observed that there was not a
single document produced as regards the income of the deceased.
5. Taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the learned Tribunal at paragraphs 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 and
48 have elaborately considered the evidence on record and came to an opinion
that the monthly income of the deceased is to be considered @Rs.4000/- per
month. The same appears to be in terms with the well settled principles of law.
6. Taking into account the above, this Court does not find it to be a fit case
for admission of the instant appeal and, therefore, in exercise of its powers
under Order XLI Rule 11, the instant appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
