Gauhati High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co ... vs Sima Devi And 6 Ors on 2 June, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010107232025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./231/2025
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZA, OPPOSITE OF S.B.
DEORAH COLLEGE, 4TH FLOOR, BORA SERVICE, GUWAHATI, DISTRICT-
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM, (REPRESENTED BY IT S DY.MANAGER LEGAL
CLAIMS, MR. SABIR AHMED CHOUDHURY)
VERSUS
SIMA DEVI AND 6 ORS
W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
2:AYUSH KUMAR
S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
3:SHIVANI KUMARI
D/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
4:SHUBHAM KUMAR
S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
(CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.-2
3 AND 4 BEING MINOR ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER I.E.
THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.-1)
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF- CHITALPUR
P.S.- BIDURPUR
DISTRICT-VAISHALI
BIHAR
5:NILOTPAL HAZARIKA
S/O MINESWAR HAZARIKA
R/O SOLLENGI
P.S.- GOHPUR
DISTRICT-BISWANATH
ASSAM PIN- (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.- AS07/BC-1159)
Page No.# 2/5
6:GOJEN BORA
S/O HEN CHANDRA BORA
R/O KOKILAGURI
P.S.- GOHPUR
DISTRICT-BISWANATH
ASSAM
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO.- AS07/BC-1159)
7:RAM DAS RAY
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O CHITALPUR
P.S.- BIDURPUR
DISTRICT-VAISHALI
BIHAR PIN- (FATHER OF THE DECEASED LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @
BIJAY RAI
Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/1719/2025
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT AASTHA PLAZA
OPPOSITE OF S.B. DEORAH COLLEGE
4TH FLOOR
BORA SERVICE
GUWAHATI
DISTRICT-KAMRUP M
ASSAM REPRESENTED BY ITS DY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS
MR. SABIR AHMED CHOUDHURY
VERSUS
SIMA DEVI AND 6 ORS.
W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
2:AYUSH KUMAR
S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
3:SHIVANI KUMARI
D/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
4:SHUBHAM KUMAR
S/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY RAI
(CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.-2
3 AND 4 BEING MINOR ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER I.E.
THE CLAIMANT/RESPONDENT NO.-1)
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF- CHITALPUR
P.S.- BIDURPUR
Page No.# 3/5
DISTRICT-VAISHALI
BIHAR
5:NILOTPAL HAZARIKA
S/O MINESWAR HAZARIKA
R/O SOLLENGI
P.S.- GOHPUR
DISTRICT-BISWANATH
ASSAM PIN- (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO.- AS07/BC-1159)
6:GOJEN BORA
S/O HEN CHANDRA BORA
R/O KOKILAGURI
P.S.- GOHPUR
DISTRICT-BISWANATH
ASSAM
(DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO.- AS07/BC-1159)
7:RAM DAS RAY
S/O UNKNOWN
R/O CHITALPUR
P.S.- BIDURPUR
DISTRICT-VAISHALI
BIHAR PIN- (FATHER OF THE DECEASED LATE VIJAY KUMAR RAY @ BIJAY
RAI)
For the appellant (s) : Mr. A. Bhattacharjee, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : XXXX
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
02.06.2025
This is an Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 28.02.2025
passed in MAC Case No.1217/2022 by the learned Member, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (for short,
'the learned Tribunal').
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has
Page No.# 4/5
raised four grounds of objection. The first ground of objection is that
the deceased who was the driver of the Oil Tanker did not have the
certificate for driving the hazardous vehicles in terms with Rule 9 of
the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The said objection, in the
opinion of this Court, is required to be rejected on the ground that
the learned Tribunal had duly opined that it is on account of the
offending vehicle, i.e. the Dumper bearing registration No.AS-07-BC-
1159 driven in a rash and negligent manner that the accident took
place. Under such circumstances, the said ground of objection do not
arise.
3. The second ground of objection so taken is the multiplier which
has been applied should have been 15 and not 16. This Court has
duly taken note of the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal on
the basis of the driving licence, i.e. Exhibit-5 that the age of the
victim was 35 years, 2 months 4 days on the date of the accident.
Applying the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarla
Verma & Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation , reported in (2009) 6
SCC 121 in the opinion of this Court that the learned Tribunal had
rightly applied the multiplier 16 taking into account that the Supreme
Court had categorically observed that for the age from 31 to 35
years, the multiplier 16 would be applicable. Under such
circumstances, this ground of objection does not hold water.
4. The third ground of objection so taken is contributory
negligence on the part of the Oil Tanker. This Court has duly taken
Page No.# 5/5
note of that though evidence was adduced by the appellant
Insurance Company, but a person who had adduced evidence was
neither an eye witness nor he had produced any documents to show
that the accident occurred on account of the fault of the driver of the
Oil Tanker which was driven by the deceased. There was also no
sketch map produced to indicate that the accident was in the middle
of the road and not what was alleged. Considering that the burden
lies upon the appellant Insurance Company to have adduced
evidence if the defence of contributory negligence was taken and
having failed, this ground of objection does not also hold water.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company
further submitted that the learned Tribunal had imposed interest at
the rate of 9% which was on a higher side and that too without
taking into consideration that the interest was also awarded on future
prospects. Only on these two grounds, i.e. interest on future
prospects as well as the interest being higher, this Court admits the
instant Appeal.
6. Call for the record(s).
7. Steps be taken upon the respondent Nos.1 to 7 by way of
registered post with A/D as well as through usual process within 2
(two) days.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
