[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Tripura High Court
The Branch Manager vs Smt. Rita Rani Biswas on 5 February, 2026
Author: T. Amarnath Goud
Bench: T. Amarnath Goud
Page 1 of 5
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
MAC APP 103 OF 2025
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Rajbari, P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North Tripura;
---- Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Smt. Rita Rani Biswas, wife of late Debashish Biswas,
resident of Dewanpasha, P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North
Tripura;
2. Sri Debdut Biswas, son of late Debashish Biswas, resident
of Dewanpasha, P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North Tripura;
3. Sri Rajdoot Biswas, wife of late Debashish Biswas, resident
of Dewanpasha, P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North Tripura;
----Claimant-Respondents
4. Sri Raju Nath @ Sujit, son of Sri Sitangshu Nath, resident
of West Radhapur, P.S. Dharmanagar, District- North Tripura, Pin-
799250;
(rider of the offending vehicle)
5. Sri Prasenjit Malakar @ Rupak, son of late Nipendra
Malakar, resident of Tulgaon, Ichailalcherra, P.S. Kadamtala,
District- North Tripura, Pin-799250;
(owner of the offending vehicle)
---- Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Karnajit De, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : None
Date of hearing & delivery : 05.02.2026
of Judgment & Order
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No
BEFORE
HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. T. AMARNATH GOUD
Judgment & Order (Oral)
05/02/2026
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-insurance
company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated
24.06.2025 passed by the ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
North Tripura, Dharmanagar, in case No. T.S. (MAC) 10 of 2023,
praying for dismissal of the award to the tune of Rs. 16,30,000/-
only alongwith interest @8% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of
the claim petition i.e. 17.08.2023, till realization of the same..
2. Heard K. De, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant. Despite receipt of notice, there is no representation
from the respondents.
3. The facts of the case, in a short compass, is that, on
29.01.2022, the deceased, Debashish Biswas was returning to his
home situated at Dewanpasha on foot and at about 6.15 p.m.
when he reached at Garjantilla near a culvert, the offending
numberless motorcycle being driven rashly and negligently
suddenly dashed him from his back side resulting which he fell on
the road and sustained severe injuries on her person. After the
accident, he was shifted to Dharmanagar District Hospital, but in
course of treatment, he succumbed to his injuries. On to that
issue, the appellants had claimed Rs.23,30,000/- as compensation
under different heads.
On receipt of the claim application, both the appellant-
insurance company and the respondent-owner by filing their
respective written statements contested the claim application
denying the averments of the appellants brought forth in the claim
petition. In course of the proceeding, witnesses were examined
and cross-examined and some documents were exhibited. No
evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced by the
insurance company.
The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence on
record, passed an award for a sum of Rs.16,30,000/- as
compensation along with interest @8% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application till the date of actual realization
imposing some other withdrawal conditions, and directed the
Insurance Company to make the payment within 30 days from the
date of passing of the judgment and award.
Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the said
award dated 24.06.2025 passed by the learned Tribunal in T.S.
(MAC) 10 of 2023, the appellant-insurance company had preferred
this appeal.
4. Mr. De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
has contended that the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal is not in accordance with law. Learned counsel further
contended that the learned Tribunal has not properly assessed the
income of the deceased. It is further contended that the owner of
the shop where the deceased was claimed to perform his job was
not examined as witness on the contrary only a certificate showing
the income of the deceased has been submitted. Learned counsel
further urged this court to reduce the monthly income of the
deceased since the same has been assessed whimsically and also
prayed for reducing the rate of interest.
5. I have perused the entire record including the award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
7. On bare perusal of the record, evidently it is well
established that there is no pleading or evidence of the owner of
the shop to substantiate the income of the deceased. None of the
claimant-respondents had examined the owner of the shop during
trial where the deceased used to work. Thus, it can safely be said
that the profession of the deceased was not established. The
certificate (Exhibit-15) thus is not supported by any cogent
documentary or oral evidence. In absence of any documentary
proof to substantiate salary of the victim, it would not be
appropriate to consider the salary claimed by the claimants at Rs.
15,000/- per month. The Tribunal has further erred in law in
holding the rate of interest @8% per annum. Thus, in view of this
court, the assessment of the learned trial Court regarding income
of the deceased and the rate of interest, is liable to be interfered
with.
8. Thus, having examined the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the monthly income of the deceased is reduced
to Rs.12,000 per month from Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in
so far as the interest is concerned, this court is fixing 7.5%
interest considering as reasonable invariably in all cases.
Accordingly, the compensation amount shall carry interest @7.5%
per annum w.e.f. from the date of filing of the claim petition till its
actual payment. The appellant-insurance company shall deposit
the entire amount, if not paid, with the Registry of this Court
within 1(one) months from today.
9. It is made clear that all other statutory benefits, as
awarded by the learned tribunal shall remain unaltered, and the
same are affirmed accordingly.
10. It is made clear that after calculating the award afresh,
the insurance company shall deposit the entire amount with the
Registry of this Court within 1(one) months from today, if not
already deposited. Registry shall adjust or refund Rs.25,000/-, the
statutory amount, which was deposited by the appellant at the
time of filing of the appeal, as per procedure.
11. However, it is made clear that on such deposit, the
claimant-respondents would be at liberty to withdraw the same in
terms of the conditions as laid down in Order dated 24.06.2025
passed in T.S.(MAC)10 of 2023.
12. In the result, the judgment and award dated
24.06.2025 is interfered with to the extent as indicated above, and
the appeal, therefore, stands allowed in-part.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE
SAIKAT KAR SAIKAT KAR
Date: 2026.02.10
21:10:40 -08'00'
