[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Manti Saha (Kar) on 2 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP 4 OF 2026
National Insurance Company Limited,
represented by its Assistant Manager, AK Road, Tripura
(West), Pin-799001.
----Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Manti Saha (Kar), wife of late Krishna Kar, resident of
Ghoshpara, Barjala, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West
Tripura.
2. Miss Kritika Kar, daughter of late Krishna Kar, resident of
Ghoshpara, Barjala, P.S. New Capital Complex, District- West
Tripura. (claimant petitioner No.2 is represented by her
mother being natural guardian, claimant petitioner No.1)
.... Claimant Respondents
3. Sri Raj Sutradhar, son of late Roy Mohan Sutradhar,
resident of Gurkhabasti, P.S. New Capital Complex, District-
West Tripura, Pin-799006
(Owner of TR-01-G-5036, Motorcycle)
---- Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. S.Datta Chowdhury, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Date of hearing & delivery : 02.02.2026
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
02/02/2026
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant- National
Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgment dated
22.09.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court
No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 125 of 2023
praying for dismissal of the award to the tune of Rs. 33,32,060/-
only alongwith interest @7% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of
the claim petition i.e. 05.06.2023, till realization of the same.
2. Heard Mr. S. Datta Chowdhury, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company.
3. Briefly stated, the deceased (husband of claimant-
respondent No. 1 and father of claimant-respondent No.2) on
06.04.2023 at about 23.20 hours was returning home from Sishu
Udyan Bipani Bitan by riding his motorcycle bearing registration
No. TR-01-K-5378 and when he reached at Gurkhabasti near
Shani Mandir, another motorcycle bearing registration No. TR-01-
G-5036 i.e. the offending vehicle, driven by its driver with
excessive speed and in negligent manner lost control over the
vehicle and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, resulting
which the deceased sustained grievous injuries, and immediately
he was shifted to AGMC & GBP hospital by the help of patrolling
party and local people where during treatment, the doctors
declared him dead.
On receipt of the claim application, the appellant-
insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle by filing
their respective written statements contested the claim
application.
All the witnesses were examined and cross-examined
and the documents, submitted by parties to the claim petition
were also taken into consideration by the learned trial Court.
Following the settled principles of law, the learned
Tribunal has quantified the compensation to be paid to the
claimant-respondent to the tune of Rs. 33,32,060/- along with
interest @7% per annum from the date of filing of claim
application till the date of realization with proportionate share.
Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said
award dated 22.09.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.S.
(MAC) 125 of 2023, the appellant-insurance company has
preferred this appeal with the following reliefs:
"a) Admit the appeal;
b) Call for the records bearing case no. T.S.(MAC) 125 of 2023
from the Ld. Member, MACT, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala;
c) Issue notice upon the respondents as to why the impugned
judgment dt. 22.09.2025 passed by the Ld. MACT (Tribunal No.2) in
case No. T.S.(MAC) 125 of 2023 shall not be set-aside, cancelled,
modified or quashed and;
d) after hearing be kind enough to set aside, quash, cancel,
modified the impugned judgment dt. 22.09.2025 passed by the Ld.
MACT (Tribunal No.2) in case No. T.S.(MAC) 125 of 2023 and during
the pendency of the appeal be kind enough to stay further
proceeding arising out of the impugned judgment passed in Case
bearing No. T.S.(MAC) 125 of 2023."
4. Mr. Datta Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant-insurance company has argued that the award is in
the higher side. It is argued that in the claim petition the claimant
has stated that the monthly income of the deceased was
Rs.30,000/-, but the learned tribunal decided his monthly income
as Rs.20,000/- only on the basis of a tea-stall run by the wife of
the deceased. It was also argued that learned tribunal relying only
on Exhibit-6 i.e. the trade license in the name of wife of the
deceased, had passed the award. It was further argued that the
learned tribunal has not discussed anything regarding the proof of
documents i.e. the income certificate or age certificate of the
deceased, which were not produced during trial. Mr. Datta
Chowdhury, learned counsel further argued that from the trade
license (Exbt. 6) it is clear that the tea stall lies in the name of the
wife of the deceased, and the learned tribunal only on the basis of
the tea stall lying in the name of the wife of the deceased has
passed the award, which is in much higher side. Learned counsel
for the appellant has further submitted that the amount of
compensation has been wrongly assessed which requires
interference by this Court.
5. I have perused the entire record including the award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
6. On scrutiny of the record, it is evident that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle which fact also is established from the charge
sheet (Exbt. 3) submitted by the police. Regarding age proof, this
court is satisfied that the PM report clearly determined the age of
the deceased to be '40' years, and the learned court taking into
consideration the age of the deceased had assessed the
compensation. Exbt. 6, further ascertain that that the trade license
was issued for a period from 2021-25 for running a tea stall under
the name and style 'M/s Joy Guru Varieties'. The accident occurred
on 06.04.2023. Thus, it can be presumed that though the trade
license lies in the name of wife of the deceased but the business
was run by the deceased himself. The claimant-respondent no. 1
in her cross-examination specifically stated that the deceased used
to run the tea stall and used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month. Thus,
from oral and documentary evidence prima facie the income and
age of the deceased has well been established.
7. Upon consideration of the totality of facts and
circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to warrant an
interference with the impugned award, and the same cannot be
interfered with. Accordingly, it is made clear that the findings of
the learned Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the claimant-
respondent to receive the compensation to the tune of Rs.
33,32,060/- alongwith interest @7% per annum w.e.f. from the
date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment, is not
liable to be disturbed and hence, the same is affirmed. The
appellant-insurance company shall deposit the entire amount, if
not paid, with the Registry of this Court within 1(one) months
from today. Registry shall adjust Rs.25,000/- which was submitted
by the appellant at the time of filing of the appeal, as per
procedure.
9. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant-
insurance company stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2026.02.04
02:46:41 -08'00'
