1 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 1 GAHC010083202015 2026:GAU-AS:7515 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) MAC App. No. 949/2018 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Having its registered office at Oriental House A 25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002 and Regional Office At Guwahati-7, represented by the Regional Manager. …..Appellant -Versus- 1. On the death of Sri Angshuman Borah, his legal heir Sri Anjan Borah S/o late Nogendra Nath Borah, R/o Purna Amolapatthy, P.O. Golaghat, P.S.-Golaghat, Dist.-Golaghat, State-Assam, PIN-785621. 2. Sri Dipu Sarmah S/o late Anil Sarmah, R/o Old Amulapatty, Ward No. 2, P.O.-Golaghat, P.S.-Golaghat, District-Golaghat, Assam ……Respondent 2 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 2 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Advocate for appellant : Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate Advocate for respondent : Ms. R. Choudhury, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : 29.01.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 25.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes Judgment and Order 1. Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. 2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been filed by the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgment and award, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, Assam, in MAC Case No. 73/2011. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 14.04.2011 at about 9.45pm, one Angshuman Borah was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-05-D-5732 as pillion rider from Golaghat towards his home situated at Purana 3 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 3 Amolapatti, Golaghat. The motorcycle was driven by its owner, namely, Dipu Sarma. However, when it reached in front of LIC Office Golaghat, the driver of the motorcycle lost control over the same and dashed it against an electric post in a great force resulting in the accident in which the said Angshuman Borah sustained multiple injuries. The injured was immediately taken to Kushal Konwar Civil Hospital, Golaghat, where the attending doctors referred him to Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, wherein he took his treatment as indoor patient for 47 days from 15.04.2011 to 02.06.2011. As a result of the accident and the injuries sustained by him, the said Angshuman Borah became permanently disabled and unable to move. 4. Thereafter, the injured approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 through his brother Shri Anjan Bora, seeking compensation for injuries sustained by him in the above-mentioned motor vehicle incident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 73/2011. The owner of the offending motorcycle did not contest the case, hence, it proceeded ex-parte against him. However, the present appellant contested the claim of the injured by filing a written statement, wherein he took usual defences, which are normally taken in claims cases by insurance companies. 5. Upon pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat framed the following issues. 4 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 4 i. Whether there is rash and negligent riding on the part of owner-cum-rider of motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-05-D-5732 that met with an accident on 14.04.2011 at 9.45 p.m. near Panch-ali (near LIC Office) of Golaghat town under Golaghat Police Station ? ii. Whether Shri Angshuman Borah sustained grievous injuries as a result of such accident? iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, what is the proper quantum? iv. Any other relief/reliefs? 6. The claimant adduced evidence of two witnesses including the Medical Officer and also adduced certain documents. The insurance company did not adduce any evidence. Ultimately, by the impugned judgement and award dated 30.10.2014, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and granted him compensation amount of Rs.26,32,000/-along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 7. It is pertinent to mention herein that after delivery of the judgement which has been impugned in this appeal, the claimant/injured Anshuman Bura expired on 13.12.2014. 8. Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the claimant, namely, Angshuman Borah, had expired on 13.12.2014 and thereafter, by order dated, 12.08.2016, passed in I.A. (Civil) No. 5 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 5 653/2016, the name of Angshuman Borah, who was the main claimant in MAC Case No. 73/2011; was strike out on the basis of an application filed by the Insurance Company/appellant. The said application was made as the brother of the claimant, namely, Anjan Borah, was already on record as the representative of the claimant Angshuman Borah. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the present respondent, namely, Anjan Borah, being the representative of the deceased claimant, is entitled to get limited compensation, only to the extent of the estate of the deceased claimant. However, she submits that he would not be entitled to get compensation, computed against the head ‘future earning’, which was assessed at Rs. 96,000/- per annum; Rs. 1,00,000/- against the head ‘loss of amenities’, Rs. 2,00,000/- each for pain & suffering & loss of future prospect, totaling to Rs. 26,32,000/-. 10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that as legal representative of the deceased claimant, i.e., the present respondent No. 1, is entitled only to get compensation against the head “No Fault Liabilities”, i.e., to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- only. In support of her submission, she has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2007) 10 SCC 643 as well as in the case of Sarla Verma (SMT) And Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 6 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 6 11. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there is nothing on record to show that the present respondent No. 1, who is the sibling of the deceased claimant, was dependant on the deceased claimant in any manner, therefore, he is not entitled to get any compensation. In support of her submission, she has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Anand Pal & Others reported in SLP (Civil) No. 7805 of 2022 12. On the other hand, Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that in the MAC Case No. 73/2011, filed by the deceased claimant Angshuman Borah, the present respondent No. 1 had represented the deceased claimant Angshuman Borah before the Tribunal, as he was unable to move due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has further submitted that since the claimant had only expired after passing of the impugned Judgment and Award, the said Award has become an asset, capable of being realized by the legal heirs, on whom the estate has devolved. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also submitted that in the instant case, it is not the case that the present respondent is himself claiming the compensation in his own right as claimant, rather he has been there as a representative of the deceased claimant when he was alive. She submits that after the death of the original 7 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 7 claimant, he ought to have been substituted as the legal heir of the claimant. However, instead of filing an application for substitution of the deceased claimant on his death on 13.12.2014, the Insurance Company filed an interlocutory application, being I.A. (Civil) No. 653/2016, for striking out the name of the respondent No. 1, who was the main claimant and to whom, the compensation was awarded by the impugned judgment and award, which is under challenge in this MAC Appeal. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits that as the present respondent No. 1 is claiming the compensation awarded to the deceased claimant as his legal heir, he is entitled to inherit the entire award, as it has become estate of the deceased. In support of her submission, Ms. R. Choudhury has cited a ruling of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Singh, reported in (2007) 0 Supreme (MP) 1058. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that on technical grounds, this appeal is not maintainable, as there is no order regarding substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased claimant in this case, though, she submits that the present respondent No. 1 is the sole legal heir of the deceased respondent. In support of her submission, Ms. R. Choudhury has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmadabad Vs. Ramanbhat Prabhatbhai and Another, reported in (1987) 3 SCC 234 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Birender and Ors., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356. 8 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 8 17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have also gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for both the parties, in support of their respective submissions. 18. On perusal of the case record, it appears that the impugned judgement by which the compensation amount of Rs.26,32,000/- was awarded to the claimant/injured Angshuman Borah was passed on 30.10.2014, whereas the said claimant/injured had expired on 13.12.2014. 19. It also appears that the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company on 23.03.2015, i.e., much after the expiry of the original claimant/injured Angshuman Bora. However, instead of filing the appeal against the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, the appeal was filed against the dead person i.e., the deceased claimant and his brother, namely, Anjan Borah, who had represented the claimant before the Tribunal due to incapability of the injured claimant in movement. 20. It also appears that the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No. 653/2016 was filed by the insurance company praying for striking out of the name of the injured Angshuman Bora, which was allowed by this Court by its order dated 12.08.2016. Though, the appropriate course would have been of issuing notice against the legal representative of deceased claimant and thereafter, to pursue the 9 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 9 appeal against the legal representative of the deceased claimant. However, it appears that the appellant has accepted the fact that Shri Anjan Bora, who is the brother of the deceased claimant and who represented the claimant before the Tribunal is the legal representative of the deceased claimant. 21. This Court agrees with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the claimant/respondent that as the award in favour of the claimant i.e. late Angshuman Borah was passed prior to his death by the Tribunal, hence, on the date of award the claimant becomes the award holder and the amount of money directed to be paid to him becomes his asset and on his death such assets devolves on his legal heirs as his estate. 22. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case the compensation amount of Rs. 26,32,000/- has been awarded not to the brother of the deceased claimant but to the injured claimant, namely, Angshuman Borah only. However, on his death the said amount, which has been crystallized as assets of the deceased which he leaves behind after his death will devolve upon his legal heirs. As such, the amount of compensation awarded to the deceased claimant Sri Angshuman Borah by the impugned judgment and award is to be disbursed to his legal heirs namely, Sri Anjan Borah by the insurance company. 23. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding loss of earning capacity assessed by the Tribunal at 80%. 10 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 10 Though, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the cross examination, the claimant has admitted that though he cannot move and use his right hand he can do computer work by his left hand. However, the Tribunal has correctly relied on the testimony of doctor who was examined as CW-2 and who was a Member of District Medical Board, who examined the claimant after his accident and who has categorically deposed that the loss of earning capacity of the injured is 80% due to hemiplegia of both upper and lower limbs. 24. Apart from taking into consideration the testimony of CW-2 (doctor), the Tribunal also took into consideration that the injured claimant was a Hardware Computer Engineer and his work required use of both hands. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the Tribunal while assessing the loss of earning capacity at 80% has not committed any error and the said assessment has not been done arbitrarily but on the basis of materials on record. 25. For the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs and reasons stated therein, this Court does not find any merit in the instant appeal. 26. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. 11 MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 11 27. Let the records of concerned motor accident claims case be sent back to the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma Digitally signed by Amita Sharma Date: 2026.05.30 14:47:54 +05'30'