Tripura High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Smti. Sumita Biswas(Roy) on 24 November, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC App. No.32 of 2024
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Represented by the Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office at GRS Tower, 1st floor, Agartala,
PS-West Agartala, District-West Tripura.
(Insurer of the offending vehicle No.TR-06-B-7897.
---- Opposite Party No.3-Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smti. Sumita Biswas(Roy),
W/O Late Goutam Roy, Age-33 years,
2. Smti. Gita Rani Roy,
W/O Sri Nirod Chandra Roy, Age-53 years,
Both are residents of P.O. + Vill. Karailong, P.S. Teliamura,
District Khowai Tripura, Pin-799205.
---- Claimant Respondent(s)
3. Sri Krishna Das,
S/O Late Amaresh Das,
resident of P.O. + Vill. Karailong, P.S. Teliamura,
District Khowai Tripura, Pin-799205
(Driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.TR-06-B-7897).
4. Sri Prasanta Das,
S/O Sri Birendra Chandra Das,
Resident of P.O. + Vill. Karailong, P.S. Teliamura,
District Khowai Tripura, Pin-799205.
(Owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.TR-06-B-7897).
---- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Rajasree Purkayastha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Saugat Datta, Adv,
Date of hearing : 21.11.2025
Date of delivery of
Judgment & Order : 24.11.2025
Whether fit for
reporting : YES
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company
challenging the judgment and award dated 08.06.2023
Page 2 of 12
delivered by Learned Member, MAC Tribunal, Khowai, Tripura in
connection with case No.TS(MAC) No.22 of 2021.
2. Heard Learned Counsel Ms. Rajasree Purukayastha
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and
also heard Learned Counsel Mr. Saugat Datta appearing on
behalf of the respondent-claimant petitioners but none
appeared on behalf of the other respondent-Opposite parties
i.e. the owner and driver of the offending vehicle bearing
No.TR-06-B-7897.
3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company drawn the attention of the Court
that the respondent-claimant petitioners filed one claim petition
before the Learned Tribunal claiming compensation and before
the Tribunal the respondent-claimant petitioners adduced oral
and documentary evidence on record. The appellant-Insurance
Company also contested the case by filing written statement
but no oral/documentary evidence is adduced by the Insurance
Company. However, on conclusion of inquiry, Learned Tribunal
allowed the claimed petition filed by the respondent-claimant
petitioners and passed an award for an amount of
Rs.30,38,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum
within 60 days from the date of passing of the award and the
payment would be made from the date of filing the claim
petition to till the date of payment with further direction to pay
the award and also fastened the liability of compensation upon
the appellant-Insurance Company. Being dissatisfied with the
Page 3 of 12
judgment and award the present appellant has preferred this
appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company
further submitted that at the time of determination of the
amount of compensation, the Learned Tribunal below based
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2016) 16 SCC 206 [Sandhya Rani Debbarma and others
v. National Insurance Company Limited and another] and
allowed the following amount under different heads:
Head Amount
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection to aged parents Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/-
Litigation costs Rs.25,000/-
Total Rs.3,50,000/-
But according to Learned Counsel for the appellant in
pursuance of the five Judges Bench judgment of the Hon'ble the
Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16
SCC 680, there is no scope to award any money towards loss
of love and affection at an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, for loss of
estate at an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and also there was no
scope to award any money towards litigation cost and the
amount of funeral expenses awarded is also in the higher side.
So, Learned Counsel for the appellant urged before the Court to
reduce the said amount and to fix the award in pursuance of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pranay
Sheti(supra) case. It was further submitted that the Learned
Page 4 of 12
Tribunal at the time of delivery of judgment/award awarded
rate of interest @ 9% which is also in the higher side rather in
pursuance of the judgment of this Court in different cases, that
should be reduced to 7.5% i.e. at the rate which has been fixed
by different nationalized banks. So, Learned Counsel for the
appellant urged before this Court to modify the award to that
extent.
5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-claimant petitioners submitted that since based
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
compensation was awarded by Learned Tribunal below, so,
there was no scope to interfere with the same and urged before
this Court to disallow the submission made by Learned Counsel
for the appellant but Learned Counsel for the respondent-
claimant petitioners fairly submitted that rate of interest may
be reduced for the sake of justice and urged for disposal of the
appeal accordingly.
6. In this case, the respondent-claimant petitioners filed
one claim petition before the Learned Tribunal due to the death
of one Gautam Roy who died in a road traffic accident occured
on 02.03.2020 at about 5.30 at Chaltabari in front of Chaltabari
High School under Teliamura PS due to rash and negligent
driving of the rider of the motor bike bearing No. TR-06-B-7897
(Pulsur). According to the respondent-claimant petitioners on
02.03.2020 in between 17.30 hours to 1800 hours when
Goutam Roy (since dead) was returning from his work place
Page 5 of 12
towards his house on foot from Koroiling and on his way when
he reached infront of Chaltabari High School, under Teliamura
PS, Khowai, Tripura, that time, the rider of the offending bike
bearing No. TR-06-B-7897 due to his rash and negligent driving
dashed against the victim from his back side, as a result of
which he fell down on the earth and received severe bleeding
injuries on his ear and became unconscious. Immediately
thereafter he was shifted to Teliamura Sub-Divisional Hospital,
from where he was referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala
where the attending doctor declared him as dead and according
to the respondent-claimant petitioners, due to rash and
negligent driving the accident took place and in this regard, a
police case bearing Teliamura PS Case No.21/2020, under
Section 279/337/304(A) of IPC was registered. It was further
submitted that the monthly income of the deceased was
Rs.18,000/- per month and he survived by his mother and his
wife.
Before the Tribunal, the O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2
appeared and contested the case by filing their written
statement and submitted that on the alleged day the rider had
valid driving license and other relevant documents and denied
the assertion of the claimant petitioners. The O.P. No.3 i.e. the
Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the
assertions of the claimant petitioners and submitted that the
claim petition is subjected to strict proof by the claimants.
Page 6 of 12
7. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned Tribunal
below framed the following issues:
i) Did on 02.03.2020 in between 1730 hours to 1800
hours near Chaltabari High School under Teliamura
PS the deceased Gautam Roy sustained grievous
injury while he was returning on foot at Karailong to
his house from his working place and subsequently
succumb to the injury?
ii) Whether the offending vehicle bearing No. TR-06-B-
7897(motor-bike) belongs to OP No.2 and whether
the vehicle was driven by OP No.1 in a rash and
negligent manner on the relevant date and time.
iii) Whether due to such accident the claimant-
petitioners are entitled to get any compensation, as
prayed for.
iv) Whether the OP No.3 (United India Insurance
Company Ltd.) is the insurer of the offending
vehicle.
v) Whether the deceased was earning Rs.18,000/- per
month.
8. To substantiate the issues, both the parties have
adduced oral/documentary evidence on record but the
appellant-Insurance Company save and except written
statement did not adduce oral/documentary evidence on record.
Finally, on conclusion of inquiry, Learned Tribunal below allowed
the claim petition and delivered the judgment and award on
08.06.2023. The operative portion of the judgment runs as
follows:
ORDER
"6. Being the insurer of the offending vehicle, the
OP No.3, the United India Insurance Company Ltd
(OP No.03) is to pay the awarded compensation
amount of Rs.30,38,000/- (rupees thirty lakh and
thirty eight thousand only) along with interest @9%
perannum within 60 days from the date of passing
of this award.
The claimant-petitioner No.1 Smt. Sumita Biswas
(Roy) is entitled to get compensation for an amount
of Rs.15,19,000/- (rupees fifteen lakh nineteen
thousand) only and the claimant-petitioner No.2,
Smt. Gita Rani Roy is also entitled to get an amount
of 15,19,000/- (rupees fifteen lakh nineteen
thousand) only, and the OP No.3, the United India
Insurance Company Ltd. is to pay the awarded
amount of compensation to the claimant petitioners
with 9% interest perannum from the date of filing
of the claim petition by the claimant-petitioners till
the date of payment. Out of the amount of total
compensation 50% of the awarded amount be kept
in fixed deposit scheme in any Nationalized Bank for
a period of 5 (five) years and the said claimant
petitioners if desire will be at liberty to draw the
monthly interest to be accrued from the fix deposit
scheme.
Let a copy of this award be supplied to the
petitioners as well as the OP No.3 free of cost.
With my above observation this petition is disposed
of.
Make relevant entry in relevant TR."
Challenging the said judgment and award, the
present appeal is preferred.
9. I have heard both the sides at length and perused the
record of the Learned Tribunal below. Admittedly, at the time of
determination of compensation Learned Tribunal based upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sandhya
Rani Debbarma(supra) allowed the claim petition and made
compensation under different heads. Further, on the basis of
oral evidence on record of the respondent-claimant petitioners,
Learned Tribunal determined the monthly income of the
deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month. In this regard, nothing was
submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellant disputing the
said fact in course of hearing. Learned Tribunal below calculated
the loss of dependency at Rs.26,88,000/- but in respect of
other components i.e. for funeral expenses Rs.25,000/- was
awarded, for loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded, for
loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded, for loss
of estate Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded and for litigation cost
Rs.25,000/- was awarded. The appellant challenged the
aforesaid heads before this Court at the time of hearing.
In this regard, Learned Counsel for the appellant relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Pranay Sethi(supra) wherein in para No.52, Hon'ble the Apex
Court observed as under:
"52. As far as the conventional heads are
concerned, we find it difficult to agree with
the view expressed in Rajesh:(2013) 9 SCC
54. It has granted Rs 25.000 towards funeral
expenses, Rs 1.00,000 towards loss of
consortium and Rs 1,00.000 towards loss of
care and guidance for minor children. The
head relating to loss of care and minor
children does not exist. Though
Rajesh(supra) refers to Santosh Devi:(2012)
6 SCC 421, it does not seem to follow the
same. The conventional and traditional heads,
needless to say, cannot be determined on
percentage basis because that would not be
an acceptable criterion. Unlike determination
of income, the said heads have to be
quantified. Any quantification must have a
reasonable foundation. There can be no
dispute over the fact that price index, fall in
bank interest, escalation of rates in many a
field have to be noticed. The court cannot
remain oblivious to the same. There has been
a thumb rule in this aspect. Otherwise, there
will be extreme difficulty in determination of
the same and unless the thumb rule is
applied, there will be immense variation
lacking any kind of consistency as a
consequence of which, the orders passed by
the tribunals and courts are likely to be
unguided. Therefore, we think it seemly to fix
reasonable sums. It seems to us that
reasonable figures on conventional heads,
namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and
funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs
40,000 and Rs 15,000 respectively. The
principle of revisiting the said heads is an
acceptable principle. But the revisit should
not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We
think that it would be condign that the
amount that we have quantified should be
enhanced on percentage basis in every three
years and the enhancement should be at the
rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are
disposed to hold so because that will bring in
consistency in respect of those heads."
Thereafter, in another judgment reported in (2020) 9
SCC 644 [titled as New India Assurance Company Limited
V. Somwati and others and other cases], Hon'ble the Apex
Court in para No.36 observed as under:
"36. In Magma General Insurance Co.
Ltd.:(2018) 18 SCC 130 as well as United
India Insurance Co. Ltd.:(2021) 11 SCC 780,
the three-Judge Bench laid down that the
consortium is not limited to spousal
consortium and it also includes parental
consortium as well as filial consortium. In
para 87 of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
(supra), "consortium" to all the three
claimants was thus awarded. Para 87 is
quoted below:
"87. Insofar as the conventional heads
are concerned, the deceased Satpal
Singh left behind a widow and three
children as his dependants. On the basis
of the judgments in Pranay Sethi:(2017)
16 SCC 680 and Magma General:(supra),
the following amounts are awarded
under the conventional heads:
(i) Loss of estate: Rs 15,000
(ii) Loss of consortium:
(a) Spousal consortium: Rs
40,000
(b) Parental consortium:
40,000 x 3 = Rs 1,20,000
(iii) Funeral expenses: Rs 15,000""
From the aforesaid observation, it appears that in the
aforenoted case, Hon'ble the Apex Court awarded a sum of
Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate, towards funeral expenses
Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- per
head but nothing was awarded towards loss of love and
affection to the aged parents. But here in this case, Learned
Tribunal below awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love and
affection.
Further, in United India Insurance Company
Limited V. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder Kaur and others
and another case reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780 wherein in
para Nos.34 and 35, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed as under:
"34. At this stage, we consider it necessary to
provide uniformity with respect to the grant
of consortium, and loss of love and affection.
Several Tribunals and the High Courts have
been awarding compensation for both loss of
consortium and loss of love and affection. The
Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi:(2017) 16
SCC 680, has recognised only three
conventional heads under which
compensation can be awarded viz. loss of
estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses. In Magma General:(2018) 18 SCC
130, this Court gave a comprehensive
interpretation to consortium to include
spousal consortium, parental consortium, as
well as filial consortium. Loss of love and
affection is comprehended in loss of
consortium.
35. The Tribunals and the High Courts are
directed to award compensation for loss of
consortium, which is a legitimate
conventional head. There is no justification to
award compensation towards loss of love and
affection as a separate head."
From the aforesaid observation, it appears that Hon'ble
the Apex Court did not award anything towards loss of love and
affection as a separate head and directed the Tribunals and
High Courts only to award compensation for loss of consortium
with further direction to avoid any award towards loss of love
and affection as a separate head. So, in view of the aforesaid
judgments of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India, it
appears to this Court that the award made by the Learned
Tribunal under the conventional heads were not proper and as
such, the same needs to be interfered with.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent-
claimant petitioners are entitled to get award towards funeral
expenses Rs.15,000/- in place of Rs.25,000/-, towards loss of
consortium Rs.80,000/- (i.e. Rs.40,000/- X 2) in place of
Rs.1,00,000/-, towards loss of estate Rs.15,000/- but the
respondent-claimant petitioner are not entitled to get any
amount towards loss of love and affection which was awarded
by the Learned Tribunal at Rs.1,00,000/-. Regarding Litigation
cost of Rs.25,000/- nothing is submitted by the appellant so the
same is not interfered with. Accordingly, the respondent-
claimant petitioners would be entitled to Rs.26,88,000/- +
Rs.15,000/- + Rs.80,000/- + Rs.25,000/- + Rs.25,000/-. Thus,
the total amount of award would comes to Rs.28,33,000/-.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company is partly allowed with the modification that
the respondent-claimant petitioners would be entitled to get
Rs.28,33,000/- from the appellant along with 7.5% interest in
place of 9% interest which was awarded by the Learned
Tribunal below from the date of filing the claim petition to till
the date of actual payment. The aforesaid amount be deposited
by the appellant-Insurance Company to the Learned Tribunal
below within a period of 2(two) months from the date of
passing of this judgment.
A copy of this judgment/award be supplied to Learned
Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company for information
and compliance. Also, a copy of this judgment/award be
supplied to Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant
petitioners for information.
Send down the record of the Learned Tribunal along
with a copy of this judgment/award.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Deepshikha
AMRITA DEB DEB
Date: 2025.11.27 11:18:00
+05'30'
