Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010008852010 2026:GAU-AS:11505 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./305/2010 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B. NO. 7037, A- 25/27, ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110002 AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI-781007 VERSUS NARAYAN NANDI S/O LATE MANORANJAN NANDI, VILL. SANTINAGAR, PS. KHETRI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : None appears · Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 11.08.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : No · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes Page No.# 2/9 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant. 2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 13.02.2007 passed in MAC Case No. 329/2006 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Tribunal”). 3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal are that on 28.01.2004 at around 3:20 AM, the Claimant, Sri Narayan Nandi while standing on the side of the road near his vehicle (mini truck) at Lalmati on NH 37 was hit by a truck bearing registration No. AS-01/C-7335 coming from the opposite direction allegedly driven in a rash and negligent manner. Resultantly, the Claimant sustained grievous injuries on both his legs and was immediately shifted to the GMCH for his treatment. The Claimant stayed in the GMCH from 28.01.2004 to 10.04.2004. The Claimant thereupon was again admitted to the GMCH from 09.06.2004 to 21.06.2004 for treatment. His operation was done in the GMCH and external fixation was done on his left leg. Thereupon, the Claimant was also issued an identity card for physically handicapped persons by the Page No.# 3/9 District Social Welfare Officer showing the nature of disability of the Claimant to be 60% orthopedic. 4. It is also seen that the Claimant thereupon approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by filing a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati which was registered and numbered as MAC Case No. 830/04 and subsequently renumbered as MAC Case No. 329/06. In the said claim petition, the Claimant claimed an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. 5. The Appellant who was the Respondent No. 3 in the said case had filed a written statement taking the usual defence. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed 3 issues which being relevant, are reproduced hereinunder: “1. Whether on 28.01.04 at about 3-20 A.M. at Lalmati under Khetri P.S. the vehicle No. AS-01/C-7335 (truck) met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the vehicle? 2. Whether as result of the accident the Claimant sustained injuries? 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?” Page No.# 4/9 7. On behalf of the Claimant, he adduced evidence and exhibited various documents, including the Physically Handicapped Certificate (Exhibit 2); Identity Card issued by the Government of Assam for physically handicapped persons, proved in original (Exhibit 3); Discharge Certificate of the GMCH (Exhibit 4); Medical Certificate (Exhibit 5), as well as various prescriptions, bills, vouchers, X-ray plates, photographs, etc. The Appellant herein, however, did not adduce any evidence. 8. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment and award while deciding Issue No. 1 came to a categorical opinion that on 28.01.2004 at about 3:20 AM at Lalmati under Khetri P.S., the Claimant sustained injuries on account of the vehicle No. AS-01/C- 7335 being driven in a rash and negligent manner. While deciding the said issue, the learned Tribunal also arrived at an opinion that the Claimant suffered injuries on account of the said accident. 9. While deciding the Issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal took note of the various exhibits including the certificates which were issued and more particularly Exhibit No. 3, which is the identity card of the physically handicapped person issued by the District Social Welfare Officer showing the nature of the disability of the injured as 60% and on the basis of the above came to a finding that the Page No.# 5/9 Claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- on account of compensation. In addition to that, the learned Tribunal also held that the Claimant was entitled to Rs. 67,559/- on account of medical treatment. Further to that, the learned Tribunal held that the Claimant was entitled to Rs. 10,000/- towards expenses for diet and nutrition and Rs. 4,400/- as transportation expenses during the period of treatment. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal came to a finding that the Claimant was entitled to an amount of Rs. 4,06,000/-. 10. The learned Tribunal also observed in the impugned award that the insurance policy was valid and therefore, the Appellant was directed to make the payment within 60 days along with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of filing of the case till payment. 11. Pursuant thereto, the present appeal was filed in the year 2010. The only ground on which the Appellant has challenged the impugned award is that the learned Tribunal ought not to have taken into consideration Exhibits 2 and 3 without having been proved in accordance with law. 12. This Court duly takes note of the fact that Exhibit 2 is the Page No.# 6/9 certificate of physical disability and Exhibit 3 is the identity card issued by the Government of Assam for physically handicapped persons. 13. During the cross-examination of the Claimant, the Appellant herein who is the Respondent No. 3 in the said proceedings did not challenge the Exhibits 2 and 3 wherein it is certified that the Claimant has total disability of 60%. 14. Taking into account that there was no challenge to Exhibits 2 and 3 during the cross-examination, it is the opinion of this Court that the learned Tribunal was justified in accepting Exhibits 2 and 3 in view of the well-settled principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesaaraswami & V.P. Temple & Another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752, more particularly at paragraph No. 20 wherein the Supreme Court observed that objections to a document’s admissibility on account of mode of proof cannot be raised after the document had been admitted in evidence. Paragraph No. 20 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein under: “20. The learned counsel for the defendant-Respondent has relied on Roman Catholic Mission v. State of Madras in support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though brought on record, has to be Page No.# 7/9 excluded from consideration. We do not have any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the abovesaid case. However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law being made precise. Ordinarily, an objection to the admissibility of evidence should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes: (i) an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely because a document has been marked as “an exhibit”, an objection as to its admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken when the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The latter proposition is a rule of fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two reasons: firstly, it enables the court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of finding of the court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair Page No.# 8/9 to both the parties. Out of the two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the latter case, failure to raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would be no bar to raising the objection in a superior court.” 15. Under such circumstances, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award dated 13.02.2007 passed in MAC Case No. 329/06. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 16. It is observed and directed that in the circumstance the Appellant has not yet deposited the compensation amount, as awarded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned award, the same be deposited before the learned Tribunal along with the applicable interest as per the judgment and award dated 13.02.2007 from the date of filing of the claim proceedings within a period of 6 weeks from today. 17. The statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- which was deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be returned upon proof being submitted before the Registry of this Court that the entire awarded sum had been deposited before the learned Tribunal/paid to the Claimant. Page No.# 9/9 18. The records of the learned Court below be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma Date: 2026.08.14 05:06:52 +05'30'