Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs Bornali Baruah And 5 Ors on 23 May, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010207122024
2025:GAU-AS:6719
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./205/2025
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES
ROAD, CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S ROAD, DISPUR,
GUWAHATI AND REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER,
GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, G.S ROAD, GUWAHATI , 781006
VERSUS
BORNALI BARUAH AND 5 ORS
W/O LATE JITUPORNA BARUAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANITOLA NA
GAON, PO PANITOLA, PS AND DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM 786183
2:MISS SARVIRANI BARUAH
D/O LATE JITUPORNA BARUAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANITOLA NA GAON
PO PANITOLA
PS AND DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM 786183.
TO BE REP. BY RES. NO. 1
3:SMTI ASTOMI BARUAH
W/O SRI RABOTI BARUAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANITOLA NA GAON
PO PANITOLA
PS AND DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM 786183
4:SRI RABOTI BARUAH
S/O LATE SUCHEN BARUAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PANITOLA NA GAON
PO PANITOLA
Page No.# 2/6
PS AND DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM 786183
5:SRI LALLAN RAI
S/O SRI SUKH CHAND RAI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEGUNBARI
PO AND PS MARGHERITA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM 786181
6:SRI RAJIB KALITA
S/O SRI DEBEN KALITA
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SEGUNBARI
PO AND PS MARGHERITA
DIST. TINSUKIA
ASSAM 786181
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Advocate for the appellant(s) : Mr R Goswami
Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr A K Gupta
Date of Hearing and Judgment : 23.05.2025.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr R Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Appellant/ Insurance Company and Mr A K Gupta, the learned counsel who
appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. Taking into account the grounds of objections so taken, the instant appeal
is being taken up for disposal at the stage of Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code Of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter, for short, 'the Code').
Page No.# 3/6
3. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated
20.06.2024, passed in MAC Case No. 14/2017, by the learned Additional
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia, whereby an amount of Rs.
26,89,000/- have been awarded as the compensation and further, the Appellant
Insurance Company have been directed to pay interest at the rate of 9% from
the date of filing of the case till realization.
4. The grounds of objections so taken by the Appellant is that the Learned
Tribunal have wrongly applied the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of National Insurance Company Limited -Vs- Pranay Sethi and Others;
reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, in respect to future prospect, inasmuch, as
future prospect at the rate of 50%, could not have been granted.
5. The second ground of objection is that, as the accident occurred prior to
the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi
(supra), the compensation which could have been awarded on heads of funeral
expenses, loss of estate as well as loss of consortium, should have been Rs.
15,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-, respectively.
6. The third ground of objection is that, taking into account the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company
Limited -Vs- Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Others; reported in (2018) 18
SCC 130, all the claimants though would have been entitled for loss of
consortium on account of spousal, parental as well as filial cost, the amount on
the head of loss of consortium should have been Rs. 1,60,000/-, i.e., Rs.
40,000/- each and not Rs. 44,000/-, and as such, the compensation awarded of
Rs. 1,76,000/- on the head of loss of consortium is not proper.
Page No.# 4/6
7. The fourth ground of objection is that on the head of loss of love and
affection, Rs. 50,000/- could not have been added in view of the Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra).
8. Further to that, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the rate of interest at 9% was excessive, that too, without
assigning due reasons.
9. Mr R Goswami, further submitted that, the learned Tribunal had also erred
in law in saddling the entire liability upon the Appellant Insurance Company,
without taking into account the question of contributory negligence.
10. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the question of
contributory negligence can only be raised, if there are pleadings and proof to
that effect. There being absence of pleading as well as proof, on behalf of the
Appellant Insurance Company, the question of contributory negligence does not
arise.
11. Mr A K Gupta, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the
respondent Nos. 1 to 4, had submitted that, taking into account the Judgment
in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra),, the claimants' entitlement would have
been 40% on account of future prospects and further the funeral expenses, loss
of consortium and loss of estate, should have been Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 1,60,000/-
and Rs. 15,000/-. He further submits that the claimants have no objection, in
respect to the interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of the case.
12. Taking into account the respective submissions and the consensus arrived
at, amongst the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, this Court
modifies the Judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, with the following
Page No.# 5/6
amount:-
I. Loss of dependency : Rs. 16,20,000/-
(Rs. 7,500 x 12 x 18)
II. Loss of future prospects (40%) : Rs. 6,48,000/-
III. Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000/-
IV. Loss of consortium (40,000 x 4) : Rs. 1,60,000/-
V. Loss of estate : Rs. 15,000/-
____________________________________________________
Total = Rs. 24,58,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Four Lacs Fifty Eight Thousand Only)
13. This Court further observes that the claimants herein, shall be entitled to
interest @ 7.5%. The interest @7.5% per annum shall be payable with effect
from the date of filing of the claim proceedings on the amount of Rs.
18,10,000/-. There shall be no interest on future prospects, i.e., Rs. 6,48,000/-.
14. It has been duly informed by Mr R Goswami, the learned counsel for the
appellant that 50% of the amount have already been deposited before the
learned Tribunal. The remaining amount, as adjudged hereinabove, shall be
deposited within three weeks from the date of the present Judgment and Order.
This Court further observes and directs that, upon such deposit being made, the
learned Tribunal shall disburse the said amount in favour of the claimants, but in
doing so, shall duly take care that the said amount is disbursed to the bank
Page No.# 6/6
accounts of the claimants through NEFT/RTGS/IMPS, or through electronic
mode.
15. The learned Tribunal, upon deposit of the amounts, so directed
hereinabove, shall pass an order acknowledging the deposit. The said order
upon being produced before the Registry, the Registry shall refund the amount
of Rs. 25,000/-, which is the statutory deposit, to the appellant, upon
application being filed.
16. With the above observations and directions, the instant appeal stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
