1 MAC App./146/2021 Page 1 GAHC010240932018 2026:GAU-AS:10046 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) MAC App./146/2021 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Having Its Gauhati Regional Office At Guwahati, Ulubari, Kamrup (M) represented by the Asstt. Manager, Gauhati, Gauhati Regional Office, Ulubari, Guwahati-781007, Kamrup (M), Assam. …..Appellant -Versus- 1. Jaynab Nessa W/O. Lt. Ashan Ali, R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon, P.S. Kalgachia, P.O. Kalgachia, Dist. Barpeta, Assam, Pin-781319. 2. Khatun D/O. Lt. Ashan Ali R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon P.S. Kalgachia, P.O. Kalgachia Dist. Barpeta, Assam Pin-781319 2 MAC App./146/2021 Page 2 3. 2 : Zmina Khatun D/O. Lt. Ashan Ali R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon P.S. Kalgachia, P.O. Kalgachia Dist. Barpeta, Assam Pin-781319 4. 2 : Amirul Islam S/O. Lt. Ashan Ali R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon P.S. Kalgachia P.O. Kalgachia District - Barpeta Assam Pin-781319. 5. 2 : Rubul Aminn S/O. Lt. Ashan Ali R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon P.S. Kalgachia, P.O. Kalgachia Dist. Barpeta, Assam Pin-781319. Being minor represented by his Mother Opp. No.1 6. Farida Khatun D/O. Lt. Ashan Ali R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon P.S. Kalgachia, P.O. Kalgachia Dist. Barpeta, Assam Pin-781319. Being minor represented by her Mother Opp. No.1 7. Mamiron Bewa M/O. Lt. Ashan Ali R/O. Vill. Chawracharagaon P.S. Kalgachia, P.O. Kalgachia Dist. Barpeta, Assam Pin-781319 ……Respondents 3 MAC App./146/2021 Page 3 For Appellant : Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Ahmed, Advocate Date of Hearing : 08.05.2026 Date of Judgment : 22.07.2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER 1. Heard Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant M/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited impugning the judgment and award dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta in MAC Case No. 132/2017, whereby the appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 11,44,000/- to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant MAC Appeal, in brief, are that on 28.11.2016, the husband of the respondent No. 1 /claimant No.1, namely, Ashan Ali was returning from Tinsukia to Barpeta road as a passenger in tourist bus bearing Registration No. AS15C6269. 4. When the said bus reached Bezkuchi at National Highway No. 31, it suddenly met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said bus. As a result of the said accident, the 4 MAC App./146/2021 Page 4 husband of the respondent No.1, namely, Ashan Ali sustained serious injuries on his person and he died on the spot. 5. Thereafter, the wife/daughters/sons/mother of the deceased approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta and jointly filed an application under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for death of their husband/father/son in the aforementioned motor vehicular accident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 132/2017 at Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Barpeta. 6. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle contested the claim of the claimants by filing their written statement. The present appellant/Insurance Company also contested the claim of the respondent by filing written statement, wherein it has denied any liability for payment of compensation to the claimant. 7. Upon pleading of the parties, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Barpeta had framed the following issues: i. Whether the alleged motor accident had taken place on 29.11.2016 at 04.45 a.m. at Bezkuchi, Patacharkuchi due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. AS-15/C-6269 (Tourist Bus) and in consequence of that Ashan Ali had died? ii. Whether the vehicle bearing Reg. No. AS-15/C-6269 (Tourist Bus) was duly insured with the opposite party no. 3 under valid insurance policy at the relevant time of accident? 5 MAC App./146/2021 Page 5 iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extent and by whom payable? iv. To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled to in law and equity? 8. The claimant No. 1 examined herself as a witness in support of the contentions raised in the claims case as a witness for the claimants and also exhibited certain documents. The opposite parties/respondents/present appellant, namely, the Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not adduce any evidence against the claim of the claimants. 9. Ultimately, by the judgment and award, which has been impugned in this appeal, the claimants were awarded compensation in the manner as has been described in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 10. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and award is liable to be set aside and modified as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta has erred in assessing the age of the deceased as 50 years and chosen the multiplier of 13 for computation of the compensation awarded to the claimant. She submits that since the deceased was above the age of 50 years the multiplier ought to be selected for computing the compensation to be awarded to the claimants should have been 11 and not 13. She submits that by taking multiplier 11, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is required to be 6 MAC App./146/2021 Page 6 recalculated and, accordingly, the impugned judgment is required to be set aside and modified. 11. She further submits that since the age of the deceased was 51 years, he falls within the age group of 51-60 years and as such, any addition to the income of the deceased against the head future prospects should have been 10% and not 25% as calculated by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 12. She also submits that while granting the compensation to the claimants the Tribunal has imposed interest on the entire amount of compensation without excluding there from the interest on future prospects. She submits that since the future prospects is something to which the claimants would have been entitled only a future date therefore, no interest can be imposed on any benefit accrued on the future prospects. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding maintenance against the head - loss of love and affection to mother and five siblings to the tune of Rs. 60,000/- which was in addition to Rs. 40,000/- awarded to the claimants in respect of loss of consortium. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the from Exhibit-3 exhibited by claimant No. 1 i.e., pass certificate of High School Examination of deceased Ashan Ali from where it appears that on 1st day of March 1983, the age of deceased was 16 years 10 months. Accordingly, she submits that the age of the deceased on the date of ill-fated accident when he died on the spot of the 7 MAC App./146/2021 Page 7 accident i.e., on 28.11.2016 would be 51 years and as such, multiplier of “13” chosen by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to compute the quantum of compensation for loss of dependency of the claimants is erroneous and the same is required to be interfered with by this Court. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following rulings: i. Ranjana Prakash and Others Vs. Divisional Manager and Another reported in (2011) 14 SCC 639 15. On the other hand, Mr. S. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta has calculated the compensation, which is payable to the claimant on account of death of their husband/father/sons respectively, on a lower side. He submits that the claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased and as such, entitled to compensation on account of loss of spousal consortium whereas claimant Nos. 2 to 6 are the daughters/sons of the deceased and as such they are entitled to get compensation on account of loss of parental consortium. Whereas the claimant No. 7 is the mother of the deceased and as such, she is entitled to compensation on account of loss of filial consortium. He submits that in pursuant to the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others” reported in (2017) 16 SCC 689. Each of the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each on account of loss of consortium. 16. He submits that though no Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants in this appeal, however, he submits that there are catena 8 MAC App./146/2021 Page 8 of judgments, which provide that when ends of justice demands the Courts may even enhance the compensation which it finds to the just compensation to the claimants even in absence of any Cross Objection. In support of his submission, he has cited the following rulings: - i. Pannalal Vs. State of Bombay and others reported in 1963 0 Supreme (SC) 34 ii. The Managing Director, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation Vs. Kanappan @ Kannan and Another (Judgment dated 17.02.2017 in CMA No.253/2017 of the High Court of Madras) iii. Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in (2003) 2 SCC 274 17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 18. The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta was correct in assessing the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. 19. At the outset, it is pertinent to state that this Court is not convinced with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the multiplier to be taken, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, for computing the compensation to which the claimants are entitled has been wrongly taken as 13 instead of 11. The reason for the same is that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 9 MAC App./146/2021 Page 9 “Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another” reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the multiplier of 13 is to be used for the age group of 46 to 50 years and 11 is to be used for age group of 51 to 55 years for computing the compensation. In the instant case, the age of the deceased was 16 years 10 months on the 1st day of March 1983, as such, his date of birth would be 1st May 1966. Taking into account the said date of birth, his age on the date of accident, i.e., on 28.11.2016 would be 50 years 6 months and 27 days. Thus, the deceased had not attained the age of 51 years on the date of his death, as such, the multiplier to be chosen for computation of compensation cannot be for the age group of 51 years to 55 years. It has to be as per the age group of 46-50 years. This Court is therefore, of the considered opinion that the Tribunal made no mistake in choosing the multiplier “13” for computing the compensation to be awarded to the claimants. 20. The second point raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is as to whether in view of the fact that the deceased was more than 50 years of age, an addition of 25% to his annual income on account of loss of future prospects was justified while computing the compensation to be awarded to the claimants. 21. The Apex Court has held in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others” (Supra) that an addition of 25% of the established income of the deceased towards the future prospects where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years would be reasonable. Moreover, in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra), the Apex Court has categorically observed that there 10 MAC App./146/2021 Page 10 should be no addition, where the age of the deceased is more than 50 years. In the instant case, it appears that the deceased was aged about 50 years 6 months and 27 days on the date of the accident, as such, on the date of his death, the deceased was more than 50 years, as such, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal had erred in adding 25% of the established income of the deceased towards future prospects, while computing the compensation payable to the claimants. 22. As regards payment of compensation on account of loss of consortium, the Supreme Court of India has observed in the case of “Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram” reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 as follows: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”, “parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband- wife which allows compensation to the surviving 11 MAC App./146/2021 Page 11 spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black's Law Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).] 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training”. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-over have recognised that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count [ Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v. Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368; Uttarakhand High Court in Rita 12 MAC App./146/2021 Page 12 Rana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 : (1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs 40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.” 23. It also appears that though the deceased late Ashan Ali left behind his wife, five children and his mother at the time of his death, all of whom have suffered loss of consortium, namely, spousal consortium, parental consortium and filial consortium, however, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium. Though, it is not clarified in the impugned judgment, it appears that the said amount was awarded towards loss of spousal consortium. The children and the mother of the deceased are also entitled to get compensation on account of loss of consortium, namely, parental consortium/filial consortium. However, no separate amount is required to be paid on account of love and affection to the mother and the children, as has been done in the impugned judgment. 24. As regards the question as to whether the Appellate Court can grant relief to the respondent in absence of a Cross Objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Apex 13 MAC App./146/2021 Page 13 Court has held in the case of Pannalal Vs. State of Bombay and others (Supra) that even in absence of a cross objection, the Appellate Court has power to grant relief to a party entitled to the same, in exercise of its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Since the aforesaid case has been decided by the constitution bench of five Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court, it is binding of all courts, including the Apex Court (of benches of lesser number of Judges). As such, this Court is of the considered opinion that under the facts and circumstances of this case, each of the claimants/respondents is also entitled to get compensation on account of loss of consortium in view of the judgement of the Apex Court discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment. 25. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraph, the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled to on account of death of their husband/father/son is computed in the following manner: Sl. No. Description Amount (in Rs.) i. Monthly income of the deceased 6,500/- ii. 1/5th Deduction from (i) on account of personal expenses of the deceased 1,300/- iii. Monthly income after deduction (i-ii) 5,200/- iv. Annual income (iii x 12) 62,400/- v. Compensation for loss of dependency by multiplying the multiplicand (Rs.62,400/-) with the multiplier 13 8,11,200/- vi. Compensation on account of loss of consortium to each of the claimant (40,000 x 7) 2,80,000/- vii. Compensation on account of loss of 15,000/- 14 MAC App./146/2021 Page 14 Sl. No. Description Amount (in Rs.) estate viii. Compensation on account of funeral charges 15,000/- ix. Total Compensation (v+vi+vii+viii) 11,21,200/- Total =Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty-One Thousand and Two Hundred only 26. In view of the discussions made and the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the claimants/respondents are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs. 11,21,200/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Twenty-One Thousand and Two Hundred only) with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Since, the appellants have been earlier directed to deposit 75% of the awarded amount as condition for grant of stay of the execution of the impugned judgement and award dated 05.06.2018, the appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining outstanding amount against the awarded compensation, in terms of this judgment, before the Registry of this Court within four weeks from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the same shall be disbursed to the claimants/respondents after proper verification. 27. Send back the records of MAC Case No. 132/2017 to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. 15 MAC App./146/2021 Page 15 28. This appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.07.23 16:50:42 +05'30'