Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/3 vs Smti Zahera Bibi And Anr on 21 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010028292015
2025:GAU-AS:6443
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./270/2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE and HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON
STREET KOLKATA AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD,
BHANGAGARH, GUWHATI AND REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL
MANAGER, GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFICE G.S ROAD, BHANGAGARH,
GUWAHATI.
VERSUS
SMTI ZAHERA BIBI and ANR,
W/O HANIF ALI
2:SRI HANIF ALI @ HANIFUDDIN
S/O LATE NOSOR UDDIN BOTH ARE R/O VILL. NEW PANBARI
P.O. PANBARI
P.S. GAURIPUR
DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM
Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr R Goswami
Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr A R Agarwala
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 21.05.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr R Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and
Mr A R Agarwala, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1
Page No.# 2/3
and 2/claimants.
2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
challenging the Judgment and Award dated 27.06.2014, passed by the learned Member,
MACT, Dhubri, in MAC Case No. 161/2012, filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988.
3. It is seen that the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-
(Rupees Five Lacs Only), along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing
of the claim petition, i.e., on 14.09.2012, till actual realization.
3. It is relevant to take note of the grounds of objection, which have been taken by the
appellant.
4. Mr R Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has
submitted that the amount, which has been adjudged in the instant proceeding is on a
higher side and would not come within the ambit of a just and fair compensation, in
terms with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
5. This Court has duly taken note of the materials on record, as well as the impugned
Judgment passed by the learned Tribunal and from the materials on record, it is clear the
5-year-old expired on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, being
Vehicle No. AP-16/TB-6498, and the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant
Insurance Company.
6. This Court further takes note of that the claimants have duly produced the evidence
as regards the rash and negligent driving and in that regard, the learned Tribunal was
justified in coming to a finding in respect to the Issue Nos. 1 and 2. In respect to the
Issue Nos. 3 and 4, the learned Tribunal had duly taken note of the Judgment of the
Page No.# 3/3
Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Gopal and Another -Vs- Lala and Others;
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 244, and the application of the said law by the learned
Tribunal, which led to the findings arrived at, as regards the just and fair compensation.
The compensation so awarded, of Rs. 5,00,000/- , do not seem to be on the higher side.
Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and
Award dated 27.06.2014, passed by the learned Member, MACT, Dhubri, in MAC Case
No. 161/2012.
7. It has also been brought to the attention of this Court that at the time of admission
of the appeal, the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-, along with the interest accrued thereon, have
already been deposited with the Registry of this Court.
8. Mr A R Agarwala, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants,
submits that Rs. 3,00,000/- have been released out of the said amount, which have been
deposited.
9. Considering the above, this Court further directs the Registry to release the
remaining amount, i.e., Rs. 3,02,039/-(Rupees Three Lacs Two Thousand and Thirty
Nine Only), to the claimants, upon proper verification, identification as well as upon
furnishing the bank details. It is made clear that the Registry shall only transfer the
amount to the bank account of the claimants.
10. With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands disposed of.
11. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/-, be refunded to the Appellant.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
