MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 1 GAHC010283762023 2026:GAU-AS:7347 IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 1. MAC APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2023 The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its registered Office at 19, Reliance Centre, Walchand Hirachand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400001 and Corporate Office at 570, Rectifier House, Nagaum Cross, next to Royal Industries Estate, Wadala (W), Mumbai-400031 and one of the Branch Offices at Prag Plaza, 5th Floor, Bhangagarh, Guwahati- 781005. ……..Appellant -Versus- 1.Smti Rita Bora, W/o- Late Sarat Bora, R/o- House No. 20, Bye Lane No. 2, Shreenagar, P.O. and P.S.- Dispur, Guwahati- 781005, Assam 2.Bhagadutta Medhi, S/o-Horeswar Medhi, Village- Palasung, P.S.- Jagiroad District- Morigaon, Assam Pin- 782410. MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 2 3.Md. Jahirul Islam, S/o-Abdul Wahab, Village- Garaimari, P.S.- Laharighat, District- Morigaon, Assam, Pin- 782127 ……..Respondents 2.MAC APPEAL NO. 422 OF 2023 Smti Rita Bora, W/o- Late Sarat Bora, R/o- House No. 20, Bye Lane No. 2, Sheenagar, P.O. and P.S.- Dispur, Guwahati- 781005, Assam -Versus- 1.Bhagadutta Medhi, S/o- Horeswar Medhi, R/o- Village Palasung, P.S.- Jagiroad District- Morigaon, Assam Pin- 782410. 2.Md. Jahirul Islam, S/o- Abdul Wahab, Village- Garaimari, P.S.- Laharighat, District- Morigaon, Assam, Pin- 782127 3.Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office & Corporate Office6thFloor, Oberoi Commerz, International Business Park Oberoi Garden City, Off. Western Express Highway Goregaon (E), Mumbai 400063 Regional Office 5thFloor, Prag Plaza Bhangagarh, Guwahati 781005, Assam ……..Respondents MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 3 : BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Appellant : Mr. A. J. Saikia, Advocate (in MAC Appeal No. 458/2023) :Mr. A. Lal, Advocate (inMAC Appeal No. 422/2023) For the Respondents : Mr. A. J. Saikia, Advocate (for respondent No.3 in MAC Appeal No. 422/2023) : Mr. A. Lal, Advocate (for respondent/claimant in MAC Appeal No.458/2023) Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of Judgment : 19.05.2026 JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. Heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 458/2023 and respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal No. 422/2023. Also heard Mr. A. Lal, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant in MAC Appeal No. 458/2023 and appellant in MAC Appeal No. 422/2023. 2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of MAC Appeal No. 458/2023 as well as MAC Appeal No. 422/2023 as both the appeal arose out of a common judgment and award dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup(M), Assam in MAC Case No. 381/2018. Page 4 of 14 MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 4 3. The Reliance General Insurance Company has filed the MAC Appeal No. 458/2023 challenging the quantum of the compensation, which was granted to the claimant/respondent No. 1. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the compensation awarded to the claimant is on the higher side. On the other hand, the MAC Appeal No. 422/2023 has been filed by the claimant/respondent praying for enhancement of the compensation awarded to her on the ground that the compensation awarded to her is on the lower side. 4. The facts relevant for consideration of both the appeals, in brief, are that the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 458/2023, namely, Smt. Rita Bora has preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of her husband late Sarat Bora in a motor vehicular accident on 09.08.2020. The vehicular accident in which the husband of the claimant expired occurred, on 10.10.2017 at about 6:15 PM, near Demow Chariali on National Highway No. 37, Nagaon. 5. It is stated in the claim petition that on the date of accident, the husband of the claimant was knocked by a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-21-F-4610 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at the time when the accident occurred. On the basis of the claim petition filed by the claimant, MAC Case No. 381/2018 was registered. The Insurance Company contested the claim by filing written statement. However, the inquiry proceeded ex-parte against the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. Page 5 of 14 MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 5 6. On the basis of the pleading of both the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal: a. Whether the deceased Sarat Bora had died of injuries sustained in road accident on 10.10.2017 that have been caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-21-F-4610? b. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount is to be paid? 7. In support of the claim, the claimants examined two witnesses, namely, the claimant No.1 Smt. Rita Bora herself as PW- 1 and one Subhajit Dutta as PW-2. The Insurance Company did not adduce any counter evidence. Ultimately, by the impugned judgment and award, an amount of Rs.27,81,000/- was awarded to the claimant with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum excluding the interest on future prospect from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization. 8. Mr. A. J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that while assessing the annual income of the deceased, the concerned Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the deceased was shown to be an employee of a NGO, namely, Prakriti Sishu Kalyan Samity. However, he submits that though the Tribunal accepted the salary slip as well as MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 6 appointment letter exhibited by the claimant during the claim proceeding, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration that the claimant failed to produce any PAN, TAN or income tax return (ITR) to show the earnings of the said NGO and its capacity to pay the salary shown to have been paid to the claimant. He submits that the Tribunal has erred in computing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 20,000/- which is on a higher side. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has also submitted that the tribunal has also erred in adding 30% income of the victim of the deceased against loss of future prospect. 9. He also submits that the Tribunal also erred in deducting one third of the income of the deceased against his living and personal expenses, whereas the deduction ought to have been at the rate of 50% as the only dependent was the present claimant and his daughter expired during the pendency of the inquiry. He submits that otherwise also the daughter being a married daughter was not a dependent of the deceased and therefore, deduction of one third of income for personal and living expenses of the deceased was not right. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has cited following rulings of this Court: i. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Babita Singh @ Singha and Others (MAC App./197/2019 dated 07.03.2022) ii. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rajumai Medhi and Another (MAC App./698/2022, dated 14.09.2019) MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 7 10. On the other hand, Mr. A. Lal, the learned counsel for the claimant and appellant in MAC Appeal No. 422/2023 has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in awarding the compensation to the claimant on a lower side. He submits that there is categorical evidence as regards the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 25,000/- including Rs.5,000/- as allowances. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in excluding the allowances of Rs. 5,000/- received by the deceased while computing his monthly salary. 11. He submits that in this regard, the Supreme Court of India, has clarified in the case of “Manorama Sinha and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another” reported in 2025 SCC Online 2241 that the allowances received by the deceased had to be taken into consideration during computation to be arrived at decision as regards the income of the deceased. He also submits that the Tribunal has also erred in granting only Rs. 44,000/- against the head of loss of spousal consortium as the said amount is extremely low and does not justify to be regarded as just compensation. 12. He also submits that the Tribunal was correct in deducting only one-third of the earning of the deceased towards his personal expenses as the daughter of the deceased alive when the claim case was filed by the present claimant. He submits that the claims and legal liabilities crystallize at the time of accident itself and changes posed thereto ought not to ordinarily affect the pending proceedings and as such, subsequent death of the daughter of the MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 8 deceased during the pendency of the inquiry has no impact on the pending proceedings. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the claimant has cited a ruling of Apex Court in the case of “Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited” reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant has also submitted that the claimant has adduced the evidence of the employer of her deceased husband and who has categorically exhibited the salary slip which indicates that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 25,000/- . He submits that in a claim case, the claimant is not required to prove the contentions in support of her claim beyond all reasonable doubt, it is sufficient if she is able to prove her contentions on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, which she has already done. 14. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that the insurance company has failed to rebut the evidence adduced by the claimant and has also failed to adduce any counter evidence and as such the plea by the learned counsel for the insurance company that the claimant has unable to prove the monthly income of her deceased husband is not tenable and is liable to be rejected. He also submits that the interest awarded on the compensation awarded to the claimant is on the lower side and it should be increased to 18% considering the rate of inflation of the other essential commodities. He, therefore, submits that the compensation awarded to the claimant may accordingly be MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 9 enhanced. In support of his submission the learned counsel for the claimant, apart from the judgments which have already been referred hereinbefore, has cited following rulings. i. Mohd. Ameeruddin and Another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited reported in (2011) 1 SCC 304 ii. New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pratiksha Hemchandra Kulkarni and Others reported in 2019 SCC Online BOM 647. iii. Kamakhya Saha and Another Vs. Basanti Rani Das and Another reported in 2015 SCC Online GAU 1026. iv. Rajwati alias Rajjo and Other Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2022 SCC Online SC 1699. 15. 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. 16. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, after considering the materials on record, while deciding the issue No.1, had arrived at a conclusion that the vehicular accident which occurred on 10.10.2017, in which the husband of the claimant, namely, late Sarat Bora expired, was caused on account of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. This finding is not agitated by the insurance company. The MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 10 appeal of the insurance company is directed mainly towards the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant. 17. It appears that in paragraph No.17 of the impugned judgment, the Tribunal, after perusing the salary slips of the deceased Sarat Bora, though, came to the finding that he was getting an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month as salary and Rs. 5,000/- for miscellaneous expenses, however, it computed the monthly salary only at Rs. 20,000/- by excluding the amount of Rs. 5,000/- which he was getting as allowances. In this regard, the Apex Court has observed in the case of ““Manorama Sinha and Another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Another” (Supra) that the allowances ought to be included while assessing the monthly income of a person of the deceased irrespective of fact that whether the same is taxable or not. As such, this Court is of the consider opinion that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in excluding the allowances of Rs. 5,000/- received by the deceased husband of the claimant when computing his monthly income. As such, the monthly income of the deceased is computed at Rs. 25,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-. 18. As regards the addition of 30% of the established monthly income of the deceased towards the head “future prospect” is concerned, it appears that in the case of “Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Others” reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, it was held that there should be an addition of 30% if the age of the deceased was between 40-50 years. However, that is applicable only when the deceased had a permanent job. In case MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 11 where the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 25% where the age of the deceased was between 40- 50 years was suggested by the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others” reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. In the instant case, there is no material to suggest that the deceased was doing a permanent job. Rather, the evidence suggests that he was employed in a non-governmental organization at a fixed salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month plus allowances of Rs. 5,000/- per month. As such, in view of the guidelines of the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others” (Supra) the addition of 25% to the actual salary of the deceased is justified against the loss of future prospect and as the Tribunal has already indicated, no interest is awarded against such addition of future prospect. 19. As regards fixed amount of Rs. 44,000/- awarded against loss of spousal consortium to the claimant, same appears to be in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others” (Supra). Hence, it needs no interference. 20. As regards deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, this Court is of considered opinion that Tribunal was correct in deducting one-third of the income of the deceased towards his personal and living expenses. As at the time of filing of the claim petition, the daughter of the deceased was alive, and in the evidence adduced by CW-1, it has been specifically mentioned MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 12 by her that the deceased used to contribute towards expenses of his daughter also. Considering the fact that at the time of filing of the claim case by the claimant, the deceased had two dependents, including the claimant and her daughter, the subsequent death of the daughters cannot be a reason for increasing the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased to 50% instead of one-third. In this regard, the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited” reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166, are relevant, which are quoted herein below: “9. We have thoughtfully considered the rival submissions. It cannot be disputed that at the time of death, there in fact were four dependants of the deceased and not three. The subsequent death of the deceased's dependant mother ought not to be a reason for reduction of motor accident compensation. Claims and legal liabilities crystallise at the time of the accident itself, and changes post thereto ought not to ordinarily affect pending proceedings. Just like how the appellant claimants cannot rely upon subsequent increases in minimum wages, the respondent insurer too cannot seek benefit of the subsequent death of a dependant during the pendency of legal proceedings. Similarly, any concession in law made in this regard by either counsel would not bind the parties, as it is legally settled that advocates cannot throw away legal rights or enter into arrangements contrary to law. “ 21. Further, though the interest paid for by the claimant appellant at the rate of 18% appears to be on a much higher side, however, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 13 also appears to be on a lower side. Hence, same is enhanced at the rate of Rs 7.5% per annum. 22. Thus, taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000/- and adding the 25% thereto as future prospect, the annual income of the deceased at the time of accident comes at Rs. 3,75,000/-. After deduction of one-third from the same on account of expenses towards living and personal expenses of the deceased, the amount comes at Rs 2,50,000/-. Since the age of the deceased was assessed at 47 years, hence, the multiplier of 13 is to be applied to the aforesaid multiplicand and accordingly, the amount comes to Rs 32,50,000/-. 23. With the aforesaid amount, i.e., Rs 32,50,000/-, if the compensation awarded against the head funeral expenses, loss of estate and loss of spousal consortium is added at the rate of Rs 16,500/-, Rs 16,500 and Rs 44,000/- respectively, the total compensation to be awarded to the claimant comes at Rs 33,27,000/-. 24. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to get a compensation amount of Rs 33,27,000/- along with an interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% thereon. Further, since in pursuing these appeals, a period of three years has already lapsed, the claimant shall deposit only Rs 7,00,000/- out of the aforesaid amount as fixed deposit in her name in a nationalized bank for a period of two years and remaining amount shall be disbursed to her. Page 14 of 14 MACApp./458/2023 with MACApp./422/2023 Page 14 25. The insurance company is directed to disburse the amount which is payable to the claimant in terms of the above directions minus the amount which has already been paid to her within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. 26. Both these appeals are accordingly disposed of. 27. Let the records of the MAC Case No. 381/2018 be send back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma Digitally signed by Amita Sharma Date: 2026.05.27 12:26:09 +05'30'