[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/14 vs The Divisional Manager The New India ... on 13 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010144562017
2026:GAU-AS:3692
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./505/2017
SMTI PROBE BALA DEBI @ PURBESWARI DEBI and 3 ORS
W/O LATE DINESH CH. BARMAN
2: MISS ARCHANA DEVI
D/O LATE DINESH CH. BARMAN
3: MISS BIJULI DEBI
D/O LATE DINESH CH. BARMAN
4: BISHNU BARMAN
S/O LATE DINESH CH. BARMAN
ALL ARE R/O VILL. KUMURIGAON
P.O. SALKOCHA
P.S. CHAPOR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD and 2
ORS
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BONGAIGAON DIVISION,
BONGAIGAON
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H DAS, MS.P BORDOLOI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. R C PAUL (r-1),
Page No.# 2/14
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
Date on which judgment is reserved : 05.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the : No.
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J)
Heard Mr. H Das learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R C Paul,
learned counsel for the respondent No. 1, Insurance Company.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 24.09.2013 in
MAC Case No. 73/2007 passed by the learned Member Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, Goalpara awarding the compensation to your appellants Rs. 3,80,000/-
(Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand) only with 50% interest.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellants, as
claimants, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Page No.# 3/14
Goalpara claiming compensation of Rs. 6 (six) lakhs only along with her 2 (two)
sons and 4 (four) daughters on account of the accidental death of her
husband/father Late Dinesh Ch. Barman on 12.02.2016 at village Kumurigaon
on N.H. 31 caused by a vehicle bearing No. AS-17/7196 (Bus). The said claim
petition was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 73/2007.
4. The claim petition reveals that on 12/02/2006 near Kumurigaon on N.H-
31 the husband/father of the claimants namely Dinesh Ch. Barman (since
deceasd) was knocked by a bus bearing registration No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) due
to rash and negligent driving, by the driver of the said offending vehicle. The
alleged bus was coming from Chapar and going towards Bilashipara. As a result
of this accident, the deceased Dinesh Ch. Barman died on the spot. In this
regard, Chapar Police Station registered its P.S Case No. 28/2006, u/s
279/304(A) IPC as per FIR (Ect.2), Charge Sheet (EXT.3) and claim petition.
5. The offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) was
insured with Opp. Party No. 1 i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Bongaigaon
Division, Chakpaguri Road, Bongaigaon, vide policy Cover Note No. 123414,
valid up to 08/08/06. The Opp. Party No. 2 Sri. Heemanshu Sarkar, S/o Late
Hemanta Kr. Sarkar, Vill. North Raypur, P.S Golakganj, Dist. Dhubri (Assam) was
owner of the offending vehicle No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) at the time of accident.
Page No.# 4/14
While the Opp. Party No. 3 Sri. Paresh Das, S/o Lt. Radha Kanta Das, Vill. North
Raypur, P.S Golakganj, Dist. Dhubri (Assam) was driver of the said offending
vehicle No. AS-17/1796 (Bus) at the time of accident, having D/L being No.
4011/Kjr/96, valid up to 04/03/2007.
6. On receipt of notice of the aforesaid claim petition, out of the 3 opposite
parties only O.P. No. 1 filed their W.S. and contested the proceedings. However,
O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 did not participate in the said proceedings in spite of receiving
their notices.
7. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, on
the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed three issues. On behalf of the
appellants/claimants, they examined witnesses and exhibited a number of
documents. However, no rebuttal evidence was led from the side of the opposite
parties.
8. The learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, after
hearing the parties, delivered the judgment and award on 24.09.2013 in MAC
Case No. 73/2007 awarding compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- only to the
claimants/appellants with 5% interest.
9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order
dated 24.09.2013, the appellant also filed a petition on 10.10.2013 under
Page No.# 5/14
Section 151 and under Order 47 of the C.P.C. for review of the said judgment
and order. However, the same was withdrawn vide order dated 24.06.2015 in
Misc. (R) Case No. 26/2013 arising out of MAC Case No. 73/2007 passed by the
learned Member, MACT, Goalpara.
10. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
11. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the learned tribunal wrongly
held the multiplier as 9 instead of 11, as the deceased was 55 years old at the
relevant point of time and also ignored the settled principles of law laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 3104, in respect of deduction of one third of
the monthly income on account of personal expenditure, instead of one fifth of
the same, as the deceased had 6 dependents and hence, being more than five
dependents, as per the guidelines of Sarla Verma (supra), the deduction should
have been one fifth.
12. It is further urged that there were no pleadings or objection from the
opposite party before the learned tribunal in respect of the monthly income of
the deceased which was Rs. 9,948/-, which was shown through his income
certificate and therefore, the learned tribunal ought not to have presumed the
monthly income to be Rs. 5,000/- and to make the award on the aforesaid
Page No.# 6/14
basis. It is further submitted that the final award of Rs. 3,80,000/- is very low
and contrary to law and also against the weight of the evidence and
probabilities of the case.
13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submitted
that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, inasmuch as the income
certificate claimed to be issued by the Zilla Parishad cannot be regarded as the
Gospel truth in the absence of proof.
14. In Sarla Verma (supra), the Apex Court has held that while calculating the
compensation, the multiplier to be used should start with an operative multiplier
of 18 (for the age group of 50 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit
for every five years, i.e. M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15
for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then
reduced by two units for every five years, i.e., M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56
to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66-70 years.
15. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was stated to be about 55
years and the learned tribunal apparently did not dispute and apparently
accepted the same and therefore, the proper multiplier that ought to have been
applied is 11 as per the decision in Sarla Verma (supra).
16. Now, coming to the question of monthly deduction, the proper and
Page No.# 7/14
appropriate deduction on account of personal expenses, in Sarla Verma (supra)
it was held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third (1/3rd),
where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, one-fourth (1/4th)
where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and one-fifth (1/5th),
where the number of dependent family members exceeds six.
17. In the instant case, the number of dependents is 7 which has been
accepted by the tribunal as is apparent from paragraph 36 of the order of the
learned tribunal, wherein the compensation amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- was
directed to be apportioned between 7 dependents, who are the wife and
children of the deceased. Hence, it is apparent that the deduction should have
been taken as one-fifth (1/5th) instead of one-third (1/3rd).
18. This brings us to the question of the income of the deceased. As per the
claimant, both in the claim petition as well as in her evidence, she has stated
that the deceased used to earn Rs. 9,948/- per month and had submitted
and exhibited a salary certificate being Exhibit-5, which shows that the
deceased was serving as Tax Collector-cum-Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G,P
under the Dhubri Zila Parishad. However, the learned tribunal held that the
claimant had failed to prove the salary certificate (Exhibit-5) by calling any
Page No.# 8/14
competent witness from the office of the Zila Parishad, Dhubri.
19. It was further noticed that the said Exhibit-5 did not bear any official seal
nor was it issued on an official pad and it also does not contain the name of the
father of the deceased. The learned tribunal also held that the claimant failed to
submit any document/material to show that the deceased was working as Tax
Collector-cum-Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G.P. under the Dhubri Zila Parishad
as claimed and therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon the purported income
of the deceased as shown by the said certificate (Exhibit-5).
20. I have perused the said Exhibit-5 which is on a printed pad of the office of
the Zila Parishad, Dhubri and is purportedly signed by the Chief Executive
Officer of the Zila Parishad. The Insurance Company in its written statement or
during cross-examination of PW-1 who exhibited Ext-5 did not dispute the
authenticity of Ext-5 or that the deceased was working as Tax Collector-cum-
Road Moharar of Pukhuripara G.P. Therefore, Ext-5 can be treated as an
admitted document which can be acted upon.
21. Therefore, the income of the deceased must be taken to be Rs. 9,948/-
per month.
22. It is also noticed that the learned tribunal failed to award any sum towards
future prospects. In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi &
Page No.# 9/14
Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, it was held that the age of the deceased is
the basis for applying a suitable multiplier and the compensation is to be
determined keeping in view the future prospects and the future prospects were
held to be 15% in respect of a deceased between the age of 50 to 60 years.
23. Hence, the claimant would be entitled to be compensated on account of
future prospects as well. Notwithstanding presence or absence of any specific
prayer or cross-objection by the respondent No. 1 herein, the Tribunal/Court can
award compensation, which according to it is just compensation.
24. From various decisions of Honble Supreme Court, it is now well established
that the Court has to assess the just compensation, which the claimants are
entitled to in Motor Accident Claims cases. Reference in this context can be
made to decision of a three Judges Bench of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in
Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274, wherein it has
been held that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
(hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no restriction that
compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant.
In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the
Tribunal/Court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation
than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is -- it
Page No.# 10/14
should be "just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary,
fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to
the relevant provisions of the MV Act.
25. Besides, under the conventional heads, a sum of Rs. 40,000/ each with
10% increase in every three years has to be awarded under the head -
consortium, and a sum of Rs. 15,000/- under head - funeral expenses, and the
aforesaid amounts should be enhanced by 10% in every 3 years, and a sum of
Rs. 15,000/- under head - loss of estate, and the aforesaid amounts should be
enhanced by 10% in every 3 years in view of the decision of Honble Supreme
Court (Para 59.8) in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). In a recent Judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited
vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram & Ors ., reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130, and more
particularly to paragraph No. 21 and its sub-paragraphs, the Supreme Court had
made it clear that the loss of consortium cannot but has also to be extended
towards parental consortium and filial consortium. It is to be noted here that
after the accident almost 19 years elapsed. That being so, the aforesaid
amounts have to be enhanced by six times.
26. In view of the above the calculation after application of the principles laid
Page No.# 11/14
down in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and also in the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra) would be as under:-
Sl. No. Heads Calculation
I Monthly income Rs. 9,948/- Rs. 9,948/-
II 15% of (i) to be added as future prospect= Rs.
9,948+Rs. 1,492 = Rs. 11,440/-
Rs. 11,440/-
III 1/5th of the (ii) deducted as personal expenses
of the deceased = Rs. 11,440 - Rs. 2,288 =
Rs. 9,152/-
Rs. 9,152/-
IV Compensation after multiplier of 18 is applied Rs.
= Rs. 9152x12x18= Rs. 19,76,832/- 19,76,832/-
V Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- which has to be Rs. 9000/-
increased by 10% every three years =
15000 x 10/100 = 1500x6 = 9000
VI Loss of Consortium = Rs. 40,000/- x 7
Page No.# 12/14
dependants = Rs. 2,80,000/- which has to be Rs.
increased by 10% every three years: 1,68,000/-
2,80,000/- x 10/1000 = 28,000 x 6 = 168000
VII Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/- which
has to be increased by 10% in each three
Rs. 9,000/-
years: 15,000 x 10/100 = 1500 x 6 = 9000
Total compensation awarded Rs.
21,93,372/-
27. In the result the appeal stands allowed by modifying the impugned
judgment and award dated 24.09.2013 as far as the findings with regard to the
calculation under the aforesaid heads is concerned, without disturbing the
findings with regard to the issues No. 1 & 3.
28. The appellant herein, i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, is
directed to pay the sum of Rs. Rs. 21,93,372/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakh Ninety
Three Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Two) only, being the compensation,
which according to this Court is just compensation, here in this case. Any
Page No.# 13/14
amount, if already paid to the claimant has to be deducted from the aforesaid
amount.
29. It is further provided that the entire amount, including the future prospect,
shall carry interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing the claim petition,
i.e. 15.11.2010, till realization of the amount, in view of the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Uphaar Tragedy
Victims Association and Others, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 481. In the said
case, it has been held that the interest upon the compensation amount @ 9%
per annum, would be justified. Same principle was followed in the case of
Kalpanaraj vs. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation , reported in (2014) C.R.
693 (SC).
30. The interest would also accrue on future prospect in view of the decision
of the Honorable Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru @
Niharika & Ors., Special Leave Petition(C) No.11340/2020, dated July 14, 2025.
31. The appellant shall deposit the aforesaid amount before the learned
Tribunal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy
of this judgment and award. The appellants herein shall obtain a certified copy
of this judgment and order and place the same before the
Page No.# 14/14
respondent/Insurance Company within a period of one week from today.
32. In terms of above, this MAC Appeal stands disposed of. The Registry shall
send down the record of the learned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment and
order forthwith. The parties have to bear their own cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
