Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010286672023 2026:GAU-AS:11473 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./39/2024 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 7, DIST. KAMRUP. ASSAM VERSUS PARAMJIT KAUR AND 5 ORS W/O LATE PARVENDRA @ PARVENDER @ PARBINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A, PO AND PS NOORPUR, DIST BIJNOR, UTTAR PRADESH, PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI, GUWAHATI, PS BASISTHA, DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 2:SMTI. SATNAAM KAUR W/O SRI MANJEET SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 3:SRI MANJEET SINGH F/O LATE PARVENDRA @ PARVENDER @ PARBINDER SINGH Page No.# 2/10 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 4:SRI HARPREET SINGH S/O SRI MANJEET SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 5:SRI KUSUM DEVI W/O SRI RAJEEV KUMAR RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 06 JAYANAGAR SIX MILE B/L 5 PS DISPUR DIST KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 6:MD. SAFIT ALI S/O LATE SAIF ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SATDOLA KALITAKUCHI PO AND PS HAJO DIST KAMRUP ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S K GOSWAMI, MR. R SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : A G CHOUDHURY (r-1), MRS S ACHARYA (R-6),MRS. S KHATANIAR (R-6),MS. B SAIKIA (R-6) Page No.# 3/10 Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/241/2024 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER ULUBARI GUWAHATI 7 DIST. KAMRUP. ASSAM VERSUS PARAMJIT KAUR AND 5 ORS W/O LATE PARVENDRA @ PARVENDER @ PARBINDER SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 2:SMTI. SATNAAM KAUR W/O SRI MANJEET SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 3:SRI MANJEET SINGH F/O LATE PARVENDRA @ PARVENDER @ PARBINDER SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR Page No.# 4/10 UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 4:SRI HARPREET SINGH S/O SRI MANJEET SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAHAMMAD NAGAR A PO AND PS NOORPUR DIST BIJNOR UTTAR PRADESH PRESENT ADDRESS BASISTHA CHARIALI GUWAHATI PS BASISTHA DIST KAMRUP METRO. ASSAM 5:SRI KUSUM DEVI W/O SRI RAJEEV KUMAR RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 06 JAYANAGAR SIX MILE B/L 5 PS DISPUR DIST KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 6:MD. SAFIT ALI S/O LATE SAIF ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SATDOLA KALITAKUCHI PO AND PS HAJO DIST KAMRUP ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. S K GOSWAMI Advocate for : appearing for PARAMJIT KAUR AND 5 ORS Page No.# 5/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER Date : 13-08-2026 The instant appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned member, MACT No.3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in MAC Case No.1755/2019. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Mr. S.K. Goswami. Also heard the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 Ms. A.G Choudhury and Ms. B. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 3. This appeal arises out of the MAC Case No.1755/2019 where the respondent No. 1 to 4 as claimants had filed the claim petition before the MACT No.3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati claiming compensation for the death of Parvendra @ Parvender @ Parbinder Singh as a result of motor vehicle accident which occurred on 01.07.2019 at about 8.30 AM at Khanapara near Ganesh Mandir. 4. The learned Tribunal passed the order dated 18.09.2023 directing the appellant company to pay an amount of Rs.15,07,472/- as compensation along with 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Court on the following ground:- (i) The Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the claimant did not examine any eye witness regarding involvement of the offending vehicle. (ii) That the claimant exhibited FIR dated 04.07.2019 filed by one Gurmeet Singh which clearly discloses that one unknown city bus caused the alleged accident at Khanapara near Ganesh Mandir and original G.D. entry dated Page No.# 6/10 01.07.2019 also discloses the fact that one unknown city bus hit 2 persons, but there is no evidence on how the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) was ascertained and a claim was filed claiming compensation for the same as the claimant has not examined any witnesses nor the Investigating Officer of the case to prove the involvement of the vehicle in question. (iii) That the claimant did not examine any eye witness but the learned Tribunal while deciding the issue No.1 came to a finding that the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) was involved in the accident. (iv) The Tribunal came to a finding contrary to the evidence on record, as appellant company has examined defense witness and exhibited 5 documents, including a letter of the owner of the vehicle B/R No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) as exhibit-B stating and disclosing that her vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. However, the learned Tribunal did not take the same into consideration. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that by not examining the Investigating Officer, the claimant has failed to establish cogent evidence that the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) was involved in the accident and that it was the offending vehicle. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Kamlesh and Others vs Attar Singh and Others reported in (2015) 15 SCC 364 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has stated that a charge-sheet cannot be conclusive evidence regarding involvement of a particular vehicle. The learned counsel also relied on the case of Sithara N.S and others vs Sai Ram General Insurance Company Limited reported in (2025) INSC 1425, Page No.# 7/10 wherein the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle driven by the respondent and that the chargesheet alone was not conclusive evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that the claimant/respondent had suffered loss due to the demise of her husband in a motor vehicle accident and no doubt they are entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. However in view of the fact that the involvement of the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) has not been proved by the claimants before the tribunal, the learned counsel prays that this appeal may be disposed of by referring the matter to the Special Investigation Team, Assam constituted in accordance with the observation made in the case of Safiq Ahmad vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd in Special Leave Petition No.1110/2017, to investigate the facts and circumstances regarding the accident which happened on 01.07.2019 at Khanapara near Ganesh Mandir. The learned counsel also referred to the order passed by this Court on 16.06.2026 in MACApp.59/2025, wherein similar directions has been given by this Court as the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle could not be proved by the claimants. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that even though in the first G.D. entry and the FIR it was entered that it was an unknown vehicle which had caused the accident, however, during the subsequent investigation it has been found that it was vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) which had caused the accident and therefore charge-sheet was filed against the driver of the said vehicle. The learned counsel also submits that the DW 1/insurance investigator had admitted that he did not file any investigation report and therefore his deposition was purely hearsay. The investigator failed to exhibit the investigation report. The learned counsel Page No.# 8/10 further submits that even though the insurer had exhibited the letter written by the owner of the vehicle to the effect that her vehicle is not involved, the insurer has not examined the owner of the vehicle and therefore, the letter was not proved. The learned counsel submits that the fact of the accident i.e. involvement of the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) has been proved and therefore prays that this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and award dated 18.09.2023. 9. I have duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records and also the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 in MAC Case No.1755/2019. 10. Upon going through the impugned judgment, it is seen that the claimants/respondents had exhibited the G.D. entry and the FIR which shows that the offending vehicle was an unknown vehicle. No doubt after further investigation, the charge-sheet shows that the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) was involved in the accident. However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sithara N.S (supra) has held that the absence of the registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to the claim and FIR is not expected to contain every detail, however, the claimants must establish the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle must be established through cogent and reliable evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that a charge-sheet cannot automatically be created as conclusive proof that the vehicle was involved in the accident. The case of Sithara N.S (supra) has laid down the core legal issue that while re-affirming that MAC proceedings are decided on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt presumption alone without credible evidentiary basis Page No.# 9/10 is insufficient. The Hon’ble Supreme Court therefore concluded that the liability cannot be based on presumption and must be based on cogent and reliable evidence. 11. This Court is therefore of the view that the Tribunal could not have arrived at a finding that the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) was involved merely because the charge-sheet said so, particularly when the claimants/respondents had not produced any source from which the police subsequently identified the vehicle. 12. The learned Tribunal did not consider the fact that there was no eye witness who had identified the vehicle and the charge-sheet was the only evidence linking the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) to the accident. The claimant was herself cross-examined as PW 1 and she has stated that she did not see the accident. Therefore, there was a serious evidentiary gap as the claimant was not able to prove how the vehicle No.AS-01/JC-2683 (Ultra City Bus) was identified as the offending vehicle. 13. In view of the above finding, the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2023 passed by the learned MACT No.3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati in MAC Case No.1755/2019 is quashed and set aside. 14. The matter is referred to the Special Investigating Team Assam constituted as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmad vs ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co.Ltd in Special Leave Petition No.1110/2017 to investigate the facts and circumstances with regard to the accident which occurred near Ganesh Mandir on 01.07.2019 at Khanapara. 15. The Registry shall send back the case records to the learned MACT No.3 Kamrup (M) Guwahati and on receipt of the same, the learned Tribunal shall Page No.# 10/10 proceed with the matter as per the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Safiq Ahmad (supra) and shall make an endeavor to dispose of the petition upon receipt of the report of the SIT. Registry shall forward a copy of this judgment and order to the Special Investigating Team for compliance of the direction. The parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 17.09.2026. 16. The appellant may also be allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- deposited before the Registry of this Court. JUDGE Comparing Assistant