Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/13 vs Miss Baby Paul And 2 Ors on 23 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010176202018
2025:GAU-AS:14064
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./27/2019
BIMALA DEVI AND ANR
W/O LATE SHISH RAM CHOUDHURY,
RESIDENT OF LALUNGGAON, SAWKUCHI, PS GORCHUK, DIST KAMRUP
M ASSAM
2: SANDIP KUMAR CHOUDHURY
S/O LATE SHISH RAM CHOUDHURY
RESIDENT OF LALUNGGAON
SAWKUCHI
PS GORCHUK
DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
TO BE REPRESENTED BY CLAIMANT NO
VERSUS
MISS BABY PAUL AND 2 ORS
W/O SRI TAPASH PAUL,
R/O C/O HARIPADA TAPADAR, H/NO 78, MANASA MANDIR , BILPARA,
REHABARI, GUWAHATI 781008,DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM
OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE TRUCK BEARING REGD. NO. AS-
01/EC-8541
3:NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
GUWAHATI PAN BAZAAR
GUWAHATI DIVISION II
781001
INSURER OF THE OFFENDING TRUCK REGD. NO
AS-01/EC-8541
POLICY NO. 200600/31/14/6300000298 VALID UPTO MIDNIGHT 20.05.201
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A LAL, MR M BEZBARUAH,MS. S G MOMIN,MS M
BAISHYA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. M SAIKIA,MS. P BORTHAKUR
Page No.# 2/13
BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
Date of Hearing : 16-09-2025
Date of Judgment : 23-10-2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. A. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Goswami,
learned counsel for the respondent No.3.
2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 for
enhancement of compensation against the Judgment and Award dated 10.05.2018,
passed by the learned Member, MACT, No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case
No. 2163/2015.
3. The case of the appellants in brief is that the claimant/appellant No.1 along
with her minor child had preferred a case, being MAC Case No. 2163/2015 claiming
compensation under Section 166 of the M.V Act for death of her husband, late
Shish Ram Choudhury in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 07.05.2017. In the
aforesaid accident, the offending vehicle was a Truck bearing Registration No. AS-
01-EC-8541, which was insured under the National Insurance Company Limited,
i.e., the respondent No.3.
4. It is further stated that in support of her case, the appellants had examined 2
(two) witnesses and the Insurance Company also adduced the evidence of 2 (two)
witnesses in support of their plea. After hearing the arguments put forwarded by
the learned counsel for both sides and also considering the evidence on record, the
Page No.# 3/13
learned Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati had passed the order and
awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.9,65,056/- to be paid by the
respondent No.3 along with interest at the bank rate for the fixed deposit from
03.02.2017.
5. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award
dated 10.05.2018, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for
enhancement of the compensation.
6. The main ground taken in the appeal is that there was no proper assessment
of the income of the deceased and the respondent also failed to adduce any
evidence either oral or documentary to disprove the income of the deceased as
claimed by the appellants. The learned Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati also failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased was a owner of a
truck and was also possessed a valid driving licence to drive the
transport/commercial vehicle. More so, the learned Member also failed to assess
the proper rate of interest which is ought to have been assessed @ 12% per
annum to the awarded compensation. At the same time, the learned Member also
failed to award the compensation under the heads of loss of estate, loss of love
and affection etc. Accordingly, the present appeal has been preferred for
enhancement of the awarded compensation.
7. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in order to
establish the income of the deceased, the claimant in her evidence had
categorically deposed that the deceased was the owner-cum-driver of a Truck
bearing Registration No.AS-01-DE-8493 and was earning his livelihood from its
commercial vehicle. Apart from that, the deceased was also holding a valid driving
licence authorizing him to drive all categories of commercial vehicle. The claimant
during her evidence also exhibited the Driving Licence, Registration Certificate,
Page No.# 4/13
Public Carrier Permit, Fitness Certificate and Insurance Policy etc.
8. Mr. Lal, learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
determination of income in motor accident claims can be based on 3 (three) heads,
basically Minimum Wage/Notional Income where (i) the claimant is not able to
prove the occupation as well as the income of the injured/deceased; (ii) proved
income without mode of proof where the claimant succeeds in proving the income
of the injured/deceased but fails to establish or produce evidence of the precise
mode of earning, the Court, if satisfied with proof of income, can assess the loss of
dependency on the basis of such established monthly income and (iii) mode of
earning proved but income not proved in which case, the claimant may not
establish the actual income of the injured/deceased and Court may calculate on
assumption on the basis of mode of earning to assess the monthly income.
9. In the instant case, there was no dispute that deceased is the owner-cum-
driver of a commercial truck and was earning his livelihood by plying the vehicle for
commercial purpose.
10. Mr. Lal, learned counsel further submitted that there are catena of decisions
wherein it has been held that a commercial driver ordinarily earns Rs.15,000/- per
month and in the instant case, the deceased was not only a commercial driver
possessing a valid driving licence, but admittedly he was the owner of a
commercial vehicle i.e., Truck and hence his monthly income ought to have been
considered as Rs.30,000/- per month.
11. At the time of adducing evidence, the appellant as a claimant also exhibited
school certificate etc., of the son, claimant No.2, who was a student of Guwahati
Refinery High School and it is also an admitted fact that the deceased used to bear
all the educational expenses of his son.
12. Mr. Lal, learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
Page No.# 5/13
had also categorically held in various decisions that the claimant/victim is entitled
to interest from the date of accident or from the date of filing of the claim petition
and in most of the cases, the rate of interest should be 12%. Accordingly, it is
submitted by him that the awarded amount of Rs.9,65,056/- is not assessed by the
learned Member taking into consideration the income as well as responsibilities of
the deceased.
13. Mr. Lal, learned counsel further submitted that it is a fact that there was
documentary evidence to prove the income of the deceased, but it is an admitted
fact that the deceased was the owner of a commercial vehicle as well as he
possess a valid driving licence. In that context he also relied on a decision of this
Court in the case of Uttam Rabidas Vs. Siddikur Rahaman and Anr., reported
in 2005 SCC OnLine Gau 208 and basically emphasized on paragraph 6 of the
said judgment, which read as under:-
"6. However, in view of the fact that the documentary evidence was not available on
record, the learned Tribunal treated the monthly income of the claimant as Rs. 1,000
per month. We may point out that it may not be possible for a person to prove his
monthly or annual income by production of documentary evidence. Hence, merely on
the ground that no supporting documentary evidence has been produced, the
unassailed evidence of a claimant as to what his occupation and income, at the time
of the accident was, should not be discarded."
14. In that context, he also relied on another decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Ashrafi Devi
reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12312 wherein in paragraphs 2 and 3 same
view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
15. Mr. Lal, learned counsel also relied on another decision of the Hon'ble
Calcuta High Court in the case of Krishna Dey and Ors. Vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. And Ors reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Cal 395 and
emphasised in paragraph 13 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
Page No.# 6/13
"13. As regards the income of the victim, there is no dispute that he was a truck
owner carrying on business of transportation and used to drive the vehicle himself
without engaging any driver. The widow of the victim has specifically asserted that
the monthly income of her husband was Rs.9,000/- a month. It appears that although
the insurer of the vehicle owned by the victim gave a vague suggestion in her cross-
examination denying such fact, the National Insurance Company, the insurer of the
other vehicle, did not put any suggestion to the widow of the victim disputing her
claim that her husband�s income from the business was Rs. 9,000/- a month.
Moreover, the owner of a truck, who himself drives for having the salary of a driver,
quite reasonably earns Rs. 9,000/- a month and, therefore, the said amount cannot be
said to be an unreasonable claim so as to discard the said statement as unworthy of
credence. The Tribunal below, in the fact of the present case, perversely applied the
principle of notional income to the case of an admitted owner of a truck who
purchased the truck by taking loan from the Bank as it appears from the evidence of
widow. Moreover, it has also been proved that after the accident, the truck was sold
at the price of Rs. 1,47,000/- and from that money, the entire dues of the Bank was
liquidated. The National Insurance Company merely gave a suggestion in the cross
examination that the said truck had not been sold and that the members of the family
of the victim was maintaining themselves from the income of the truck, which was
denied by the P.W.-1. The fact that the truck was purchased by taking loan from the
Bank and that the entire loan was paid off from the sale-price of Rs.1,47,000/- itself
indicates that the victim had sufficient income from which he not only maintained his
family consisting of four members but also liquidated the loan amount by way of
installments. We, therefore, find that this is a fit case where Rs. 9,000/- should be
accepted as the monthly income of the victim. If we apply the principle mentioned in
the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act in the fact of the present case, the total
amount of compensation will be Rs. 72,000/- x 15 = Rs. 10,80,000/- + Rs. 9,500
(funeral expenditure, loss of estate and loss of consortium) = Rs. 10,89,500/-, but
having regard to the fact that the appellants restricted their claim to Rs. 9,00,000/-,
we assess that amount (Rs. 9 lakh) to be the just compensation. The appellants are
also entitled to get the interest on the abovementioned amount at the rate of 8 percent
per annum from the date of filing of the application until actual payment."
16. Mr. Lal, learned counsel further submitted that the learned Member also did
not fix any rate of interest at the time of passing the award. He further submitted
that various High Courts as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had passed
judgments wherein rate of interest is considered to be 12% per annum and in that
context he also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dr. K. R. Tandon (Mrs.) Vs. Om Prakash and Anr., reported in (1998) 8 SCC
421 and emphasised in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"3. The Tribunal had awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of the award but the High Court chose to curb it to 3% per annum. In
Page No.# 7/13
the first place, we do not appreciate the reasoning of the High Court to
reduce the rate of interest. We also see no justification by the courts below
of not having awarded interest, whatever be its rate, from the date of the
application. The way inflation has galloped in the past two decades and the
value of the rupee eroded, we see no justification why interest at the rate of
12% per annum was not awardable in the instant matter. We, therefore,
order that the interest on the sums modifying awarded by us, shall be
payable from the date of the application itself and at the rate of 12% per
annum. Payments which might have been made by the respondents, be
adjusted. The Tribunal is required to work this out so that the correct figure
is available to the parties for determining their rights and liabilities. The
parties may approach the Tribunal for fixing the figure payable and the sum
so ascertained after making adjustments, shall be paid over to the claimants
within three months of the determination."
17. He further submitted that the claimant is also entitled to get the interest
from the date of application for compensation and in support of his submission, he
also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Civil Appeal No.
2698/1985 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 7498/1984]
wherein in paragraph 2 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
expressed the view about the rate of interest as well as also expressed the view
that the claimant is entitled for the compensation from the date of filing of the
application. Similar view has also been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Amresh Kumari Vs. Niranjan Lal Jagadish Parshad Jain reported
in 2012 STPL 118 SC and emphasized on paragraph 4 of the said judgment,
which reads as under:-
"4. The question whether interest on the amount of compensation
determined to be payable to claimant is to be awarded from the date of the
award or from the date of the filing of the claim petition came up for
consideration before this Court in Mohinder Kaur v. Hira Nand Sindhi
(Ghoriwala), 2007 ACJ 2123 (SC), to which one of us (D. K. Jain, J) was a
party, it was held that the claimant was entitled to interest from the date of
filing of the claim petition."
18. Mr. Lal, learned counsel also relied on another decision of this Court in the
Page No.# 8/13
case of Puspa Maheswari and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company
Ltd., reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 740, wherein also the rate of interest is
considered as 9% per annum.
19. In the same context, he also relied on another decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. ltd., Vs. Niru and Others
reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1431 and basically emphasized on paragraph
11 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"11. In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim that the
claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When the matter is pending before the Tribunal
or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants are deprived of the
compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in time, it could be utilized by the
claimants and on failure, the loss of dependency would force the claimants to source
their livelihood from elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally
by award of interest, which oftener them ever is nominal also since only simple
interest is awarded. If the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a rough
calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance Company, subject to the
award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would not have been any interest liability
atleast to the extent of the disbursement made. Hence, we reject the contention and
direct that the entire award amounts would be paid with interest at the rate of 9%
from the date of filing of the claim till the date of disbursement, deducting only
Rs.50,000/- granted as interim compensation, in SLP(C) No.11340 of 2020 and 6% in
SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 as SLP (C) No.11340 of 2020 Page 9 of 10 awarded by the
High Court; deduction to be made for the amounts already paid."
20. Citing the above referred judgment it is submitted by Mr. Lal, learned counsel
submitted that the learned Member, MACT had erred both in law and facts while
assessing the compensation for death of the deceased and it is not considered that
the deceased was a owner of a commercial vehicle and at the same time, he also
possesses a valid driving licence and he was maintaining his family from the
earnings of the said commercial vehicle and also as a commercial driver.
21. At the same time, learned Member, MACT also did not assess the rate of
interest properly while passing the awarded amount and hence, the interference of
this Court is necessary and prayed for enhancement of the awarded compensation.
Page No.# 9/13
22. Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted in this
regard that the learned Member, MACT had rightly assessed the income of the
deceased and accordingly, passed the just and reasonable compensation to the
claimant/appellant and hence, there is no need of interference of this Court in the
judgment and award passed by the learned Member, MACT No.2, Kamrup (M),
Guwahati. More so, the company has already satisfied the award within 4 (four)
months. The date of judgment and award was 10.05.2018 and the award was
accordingly satisfied on 26.09.2018. More so, the deceased was also not driving
the vehicle at the relevant time of incident and there is no evidence in regards to
his income nor any bank documents or Passbook etc., were produced by the
claimant/appellant to prove the income of the deceased. At the same time the
deceased was also not maintaining any income tax return file, though it is stated
that his monthly income was Rs.30,000/-. However, the rate of interest may be
fixed at @ 7.5% per month and that may be a reasonable and justified amount.
23. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides
and also perused the case record.
24. The accident and death of the husband/father of the claimants is not
disputed. The only plea raised by the appellants is that the income of the deceased
was not properly assessed at the time of passing the award and in the same time,
the interest was also not awarded properly or not taken into consideration.
25. It is the plea of the appellants/claimants that the deceased had a business
and he was also the owner of a commercial vehicle i.e., truck and also had the
driving licence for driving commercial vehicle. This part of the evidence of the
claimant/PW-1 also could not be rebutted by the respondents by cross examining
her. But at the same time it is also a fact that she could not produce any
documentary evidence to substantiate the income of the deceased. However, it also
Page No.# 10/13
cannot be denied that he was the owner of a commercial vehicle as well as possess
a valid driving licence.
26. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company raised
the issue that at the relevant time of the accident, he was not driving any vehicle,
nor any documents could be produced to assess his income. It may not be relevant
as to whether, he was driving any vehicle at the time of the accident, but
admittedly, the deceased was a owner of a commercial vehicle and also possess a
valid driving licence.
27. The learned Member, MACT while assessing his income had considered his
income to the tune of Rs.6,500/- per month to ascertain the loss of dependency
with the view that the appellant/claimant could not produce any document to
substantiate the plea that his monthly income was Rs.30,000/- as claimed by the
claimants/appellants. But, as stated above, admittedly the deceased was a owner
of a commercial vehicle and possess a valid driving licence.
28. As submitted by Mr. Lal, learned counsel in regards to determination of
income in a motor accident claim under the 3 (three) heads and as per which if the
mode of earning is proved, but income is not proved, in such a case the claimant
may not establish actual income of the injured/deceased and in that situation, the
Court is to calculate on assumption on the basis of mode of earning to assess the
monthly income.
29. If a person can have a commercial vehicle and possess a valid driving licence,
an assumption can be made that his monthly income would definitely more than
Rs.6,500/- at the time of his accident.
30. Further considering all these aspects and also considering the view
expressed by this Court in case of Uttam Rabidas (Supra) as well as the view of
the Calcutta High Court and also considering the fact that the deceased was a
Page No.# 11/13
owner of commercial vehicle, this Court is of the opinion that his monthly income
at the relevant time of accident can be considered as Rs.20,000/- for
assessing/calculating the loss dependency. In the same time considering the view
of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the present bank interest rate, this Court is of the
opinion that interest @ 9% per annum is reasonable and justified rate of interest to
be given on the awarded compensation.
31. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that just and
reasonable compensation the claimants/appellants is entitled, which has been
assessed as hereunder:-
Sl. HEADS CALCULATION
No.
(i) Income Rs. 20,000/-
(ii) 25% of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.20,000/- + Rs. 5,000/-=
be added as future Rs.25,000/- per month
prospect
(iii) 1/3rd of Rs.25,000/- is Rs.25,000/- minus Rs. 8,333/-
deducted as personal
expenses of the = Rs. 16,667/-
deceased who left
two dependents
(iv) Compensation after Rs.16,667/- x 12 x 14
multiplier of 14 is
applied = Rs. 28,00,056/-
32. In addition to the aforesaid modified amount of Rs. 28,00,056/- (Rupees
Page No.# 12/13
Twenty Eight Lakh Fifty Six) placing reliance on a decision dated 31.10.2017,
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25590 of
2014, the claimants are also entitled to receive the following amount on
conventional heads namely:-
Loss of Consortium and : Rs. 40,000/-
Funeral Expenses : Rs. 15,000/-
33. In total the claimants/appellants are entitled to receive Rs.28,55,056/-
(Rupees Twenty Eight Lakhs Fifty Five Thousand and Fifty Six) only as modified
compensation.
34. The respondent No.3/the National Insurance Company Limited is directed to
deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.28,55,056/-, with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of passing of the judgment by this Court after deducting the amount
of award of Rs. 9,65,056/- (Rupees Nine Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Fifty Six)
already paid to the claimants/appellants as per judgment and order of the MACT
No.2, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati within a period of 3 (three) months.
35. With the above, this appeal is allowed with the modified assessment of the
awarded compensation as discussed above.
36. This appeal is accordingly stands disposed of.
37. The Registry is directed to return the Trial Court record.
JUDGE
Page No.# 13/13
Comparing Assistant
