Tripura High Court
Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance ... vs Smt. Sanchita Debbarma (24 Years) on 31 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
M.A.C. App. No.141 of 2024
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company
Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Signatory,
1st Floor, Above 'W' Showroom
Mantribari Road, Old RMS Chowmuhani,
P.S.-West Agartala,
District-West Tripura.
(Insurer of Vehicle bearing Registration No.
TR-04 B-1748, Bajaj Maxi Cab)
......Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Sanchita Debbarma (24 years),
W/o. Lt. Kamal Bikash Debbarma.
2. Miss. Jesmin Debbarma (07 years),
D/O. Late Kamal Bikash Debbarma.
3. Sri Shailing Debbarma, (04 years)
S/O- Late Kamal Bikash Debbarma,
Respondent No.2 and 3 being minor
Represented their mother
Smt. Sanchita Debbarma.
All are presently residing at C/O- Sri Srikanta Das,
Village-Sripur, P.O. Huplongcherra,
P.S.-Dharmanagar, District-North Tripura
4. Smt. Nabadi Debbarma (52 years),
W/O. Sri Ranjan Debbarma,
5. Sri Ranjan Debbarma (60 years),
S/O- Late Kishi Ram Debbarma,
Both (respondent No.4 & 5) are
the resident of Village-South Dhumacherra,
P.O. & P.S.- Dhumacherra,
District- Dhalai, Tripura.
-----Claimant-Respondent(s)
6. Sri Bijoy Debbarma,
S/O- Sri Kartik Debbarma,
Resident of village -South Dhumacherra,
P.O. & P.S.-Dhumacherra,
District-Dhalai, Tripura.
(Driver cum owner of the vehicle bearing
Registration No.TR-04 B-1748, Bajaj Maxi Cab)
......Owner-Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajib Saha, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Debajit Biswas, Adv.
Date of Hearing &
Judgment and Order : 30.10.2025
Date of Delivery
of Judgment : 31.10.2025
Whether fit for
Reporting : NO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order(Oral)
This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, 1988
is preferred challenging the judgment and award dated
19.05.2023 delivered by Learned Member, MACT No.2, North
Tripura, Dharmanagar in connection with case No.T.S. (MAC)
25 of 2021. By the said judgment and award Learned
Tribunal below has allowed the claim petition filed by the
claimant-petitioner and awarded a sum of Rs.34,43,000/-
with interest @8% per annum from the date of filing the
claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 03.08.2021 to till the date of
realization of the amount.
2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Rajib Saha appearing
on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company and also
heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Debajit Biswas appearing on
behalf of the respondent claimant petitioners. But none
appeared on behalf of the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle
bearing Registration No.TR-04 B-1748, Bajaj Maxi Cab.
3. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel, Mr. R.
Saha appearing for the appellant Insurance Company first of
all drawn the attention of this Court that the judgment and
award delivered by the Learned Tribunal below suffers from
perversity. Before the Learned Tribunal the claimant
petitioners could not produce and prove any documentary
evidence in support of the income of the deceased and
showed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-
per month. But in absence of cogent oral/documentary
evidence on record, Learned Tribunal below only determined
the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per
month which needs to be interfered with.
4. Further it was submitted that the rate of interest
awarded by Learned Tribunal below is also too high which
needs to be reduced because in most of the cases this Court
also determined the rate of interest @7% per annum, so
only on this two limited points Learned Counsel for the
appellant Insurance Company urged for interference and for
modification of the judgment.
5. On the other hand, Learned Counsel, Mr. Debajit
Biswas appearing on behalf of the respondent claimant
petitioners fairly submitted that admittedly in this case the
claimant petitioners could not produce and prove any
monthly income certificate in respect of income of the
deceased. But it is the admitted position that he was doing
fishing business and PW-1 and 2 in course of their
examination-in-chief specifically stated that the deceased
used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month by doing fishing
business. But the present appellant Insurance Company did
not raise any cloud to disbelieve the evidence of said PWs-1
and 2 and furthermore no rebuttable evidence on record
produced by the appellant Insurance Company to disbelieve
the evidence of said PWs-1 and 2. Situated thus, at this
stage there is no scope on the part of appellant Insurance
Company to dispute the monthly income determined by the
Learned Tribunal @Rs.15,000/- per month.
6. Learned Counsel, Mr. D. Biswas further submitted
that even in a nature of this case Hon'ble the Apex Court
also awards interest @9% per annum. But here in the case
at hand, Learned Tribunal below only determined the rate of
interest @8% per annum, so there is no infirmity in the
judgment delivered by Learned Tribunal below and as such
Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant petitioners
urged for dismissal of this appeal.
7. Considered.
8. In this case the respondent-claimant petitioners
filed one claim petition before the Learned Tribunal below
alleging inter alia that on 16.09.2020 at about 3.30 to 4.00
pm one Dibakar Tripura along with his deceased cousin
brother Kamal Bikash Debbarma having some fishes, as they
were involved in fishing business, were proceeding towards
Chailengta Bazar from Dhumacherra by riding a goods
carrying vehicle bearing No.TR-04 B-1748 and when the
vehicle reached near Bagan Bari area that time the said
vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of the vehicle and as a result of which
deceased Kamal Bikash Debbarma sustained injury on his
person and he was shifted to Manu CHC where the attending
doctor declared him as dead. The matter was reported to
O/C Chailengta P.S. over telephone and accordingly
Chailengta P.S. Case No.14 of 2020 under Section 279/304 A
of IPC was registered. It was further submitted that the
deceased was 28 years old at the time of accident and he
used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month from fishing business.
Hence, the claimant petitioners filed the claim petition before
the Learned Tribunal.
9. The claim petition was contested by the owner
cum driver of the vehicle by filing written statement denying
the entire assertions of the respondent claimant petitioners
in the claim petition and it was further submitted that at the
time of accident his vehicle bearing No.TR-04 B-1748, Bajaj
Maxi Cab was duly insured with the OP No.2 i.e. the present
appellant and by the written statement the owner cum driver
prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. The present
appellant as Insurance Company also contested the claim
petition by filing written statement denying the claimant of
the respondent claimant petitioners and the Insurance
Company further took the plea that the claim petition was
subjected to strict proof by the claimant-petitioners.
10. However, upon the pleadings of the parties the
following issues were framed by the Learned Tribunal:-
"(i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present
forms?
(ii) Whether there was an accident occurred on
16.09.2020 at about 3.30/4.00 pm the deceased Kamal
Bikash Debbarma along with his cousin brother were
proceeding towards Chailengta Bazar from Dhumachera
with goods carrying vehicle bearing registration No.TR-
04-B-1748 and while they reached at Baganbari area,
the vehicle was capsized on Manu-Chailengta road due
to the rash and negligent driving by the driver, resulting
which said Kamal Bikash Debbarma sustained injury
and shifted to Manu CHC, wherein the attending doctor
declared him dead.
(iii) Whether, the claimant are entitled to get
compensation for and if so, what should be the quantum
of compensation and who shall be liable to pay?
(iv) Any other relief/reliefs is the claimants entitled
to?"
11. To substantiate the claim petition on behalf of the
respondent claimant petitioner two witnesses were produced
who were examined as PWs-1 and 2 and the OP cum owner
of the offending vehicle was examined as OPW-1. But no
oral/documentary evidence is adduced by the present
appellant Insurance Company. For the sake of convenience
the names of the witnesses and the documentary evidence of
the parties are mentioned herein below:-
Claimant' Witness:-
PW.1- Smt. Sanchita Debbarma
PW.2- Sri Dinesh Debbarma
Claimant' Exhibits:-
Ext.1 to 1/3:- Certified copies of FIR along with printed form in total 04
sheets.
Ext.2 to 2/2:- Certified copies of Post Mortem report in total 03
sheets.
Ext.3:- Certified copy of Mechanical Inspecton Report dated 17.10.2020
in 1 sheet.
Ext.4 to 4/1:- Certified copy of Seizure list in total 02 sheets.
Ext.5:- The certified copy of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle bearing
registration No.TR-04-B-1748 in 01 sheets.
Ext.6 to 6/3:- The certified copies of the accident information report
dated 08.01.2021 along with the intimation of Road Accident to the
claims Tribunal & Insurance Co. in 4 sheets.
Ext.7 to 7/4:- The certified copy of the charge sheet dated 31.03.2021
in 05 sheets.
Ext.8 to 8/5:- The photo copy of the Aadhar Card of Sanchita, Birth
Certificate of Jesmin Debbarma & Shailing Debbarma, Aadhar cards of
nabadi Debbarma, Ranjan Debbarma & Kamal Bikash Debbarma in 6
sheets.
Opposite party's witness:-
OPW.1- Sri Bijoy Debbarma
Opposite party's Exhibit:-
Ext.A:- Photo copy of Registration Certificate.
Ext.B:- Photo copy of Driving License.
Ext.C:- Photo copy of Fitness Certificate.
Ext.D:- Photo copy of Insurance Certificate.
12. Finally, on conclusion of enquiry Learned Tribunal
below allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent
claimant petitioners. The operative portion of the judgment
and award dated 19.05.2023 runs as follows:-
Order/Award
"The OP No.2, The Cholamandalam MS GIC Limited is
directed to deposit the awarded compensation of
Rs.34,43,000/- (Rupees Thirty Fourt Lakh Fourty Three
Thousand) only within 30 days from today with interest
thereon at the rate of 8% per annum with effect from
date of filing of the claim application i.e., from
03.08.2021 to till realization of the full.
Distribution of Compensation
Claimant No.1 being wife is entitled to 40% of the
compensation. Claimant No.2 to 5 being daughter, son,
mother and father each are entitled to get 15% of
compensation.
Protection Awarded Compensation
Fifty percent (50%) of the amount of compensation of
claimant No.1 is to be fixed deposited for five years and
the rest amount is to be released in her favour in her
bank account. As claimant No.2 and 3 are minor their
whole amount are to be deposited for fixed period till
they attaining majority. As claimant No.4 and 5 are aged
about more than 52 and 60 years respectively, their
whole amount is to released in their favour in their bank
accounts.
In case of necessity, the Tribunal can be approached for
withdrawal of fixed deposited amount. On maturity of the
fixed deposits the Banker shall credit the amounts to the
sole SB Accounts of claimants without any further order
from the Tribunal.
Furnish a copy of the award to both sides.
The case stands disposed of on contest.
Make necessary entry in the TR and CIS.
Pronounced in the open court."
13. Challenging the judgment and award the
Insurance Company as appellant has preferred this present
appeal. I have heard both the sides at length and perused
the judgment and award delivered by the Learned Tribunal
below. It appears that the Learned Tribunal after considering
the oral/documentary evidence on record has awarded a sum
of Rs.34,43,000/- with 8% interest from the date of filing
claim petition to till the date of realization in favour of the
claimant petitioners. As already stated, to substantiate the
issues from the side of the respondent claimant petitioners
two witnesses were examined as PWs-1 and 2 namely Smt.
Sanchita Debbarma and Dinesh Debbarma who in course of
their examination specifically stated that the deceased used
to earn Rs.30,000/- per month from fishing business. They
were cross-examined by the owner cum driver of the vehicle
and the appellant. But the opposite parties including the
present appellant Insurance Company save and except denial
could not raise any circumstances to disbelieve the evidence
of said PWs-1 and 2. Even the present appellant Insurance
Company to counter the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 also did
not adduce any oral/documentary evidence on record as
already stated. It is also the admitted position that to
substantiate the monthly income, the respondent claimant
petitioners could not prove and produce any documentary
evidence on record. However, on perusal of the judgment of
the Learned Tribunal it appears that, Learned Tribunal at the
time of determination of monthly income determined the
monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- but
admittedly no specific reasons was given by the Learned
Tribunal as to how he assessed the monthly income of the
deceased. In a case of this nature it should be kept in mind
by the Learned Tribunal that at the time of determination of
monthly income specific reasons should be given as to how
the Learned Tribunal determined/assessed the monthly
income of the deceased which is found to be absent in the
judgment.
14. Since it is the admitted position that the deceased
was doing fishing business and the alleged accident took
place in the year 2020. So, considering the prevailing market
conditions of the State it can easily be inferred that during
that period a person having fishing business used to earn not
less than Rs.15,000/- per month and in this regard there was
no contrary evidence on record from the side of the
contesting opposite parties including the present appellant to
disbelieve the assessment of the monthly income by the
Learned Tribunal. As such I do not find any scope to interfere
with the judgment and to reduce the monthly income of the
deceased as projected by Learned Counsel for appellant
Insurance Company. However, it is further found that at the
time of delivery of the judgment, Learned Tribunal awarded
interest @8% per annum which in my considered view was
not proper. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in the considered opinion of this
Court the rate of interest should be 7% in place of 8%
interest awarded. So, only to the extent of rate of interest,
the judgment and award of the Learned Tribunal below be
interfered with and modified.
15. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant
Insurance Company is hereby partly allowed with the
modification that the appellant Insurance Company shall pay
compensation to the respondent claimant petitioners of
Rs.34,43,000/- with interest @7% per annum in place of 8%
from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. w.e.f.
03.08.2021 to till the date of realization. The amount should
be deposited by the appellant Insurance Company to the
Learned Tribunal below within a period of 60 days from the
date of passing of this judgment. The disbursal of amount be
made in accordance with judgment delivered by Learned
Tribunal below on 19.05.2023.
With this observation, the present appeal stands
disposed of.
Send down the LCR to the Learned Tribunal below
along with a copy of this judgment/order.
Supply a copy of this judgment to the Learned
Counsel for the appellant Insurance Company for information
and compliance.
Also a copy of this judgment be furnished to
Learned Counsel for the respondent claimant petitioners.
Pending application(s), if any, accordingly stands
disposed of.
JUDGE
AMRITA DEB Date: 2025.11.01 17:07:52
Amrita
