Page No.# 1/18 GAHC010120142017 2026:GAU-AS:12933 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./15/2017 ON THE DEATH OF NIRMAL TALUKDAR HIS LEGAL HEIR S/O SRI GOPAL TALUKDAR, R/O TIHU TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. and P.S. TIHU, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. 1.1: GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR (FATHER) S/O. LT. MAYANA RAM TALUKDAR R/O. TIHU TOWN WARD NO.3 P.O. AND P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781371. 1.2: CHANDRA BALA TALUKDAR (MOTHER) W/O. GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR R/O. TIHU TOWN WARD NO.3 P.O. AND P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781371 VERSUS SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR and 2 ORS S/O LATE ANIRUDHA TALUKDAR, R/O TIHU TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. and P.S. TIHU, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM. 2:PARTHA PRATIM TALUKDAR S/O SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR R/O TIHU TOWN WARD NO. 3 P.O. and P.S. TIHU Page No.# 2/18 DIST. NALBARI ASSAM. 3:THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET CALCUTTA 700071 AND REGIONAL AND DIVISIONAL OFFICES AT SEVERAL PLACES INCLUDING ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI 781005 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM Linked Case : MACApp./336/2017 THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET CALCUTTA700071 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE BHANGAGARHM GUWAHATI-781005 VERSUS ON THE DEATH OF NIRMAL TALUKDAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS and 2 ORS. S/O SRI GOPAL TALUKDAR R/O TIHU TOWN WARD NO.3 PO and PS TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781371 1.1:GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR (FATHER) S/O. LT. MAYANA RAM TALUKDAR R/O. TIHU TOWN WARD NO.3 P.O. AND P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781371. Page No.# 3/18 1.2:CHANDRA BALA TALUKDAR (MOTHER) W/O. GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR R/O. TIHU TOWN WARD NO.3 P.O. AND P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN-781371. 2:SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR S/O LT. ANIRUDHA TALUKDAR R/O TIHU TOWN WARD NO. 3 P.O. and P.S. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN - 781371 3:SRI PARTHA PRATIM TALUKDAR S/O SRI RANJI TALUKDAR R/O TIHU TOWN WARD NO. 3 P.O. and P.O. TIHU DIST. NALBARI ASSAM PIN - 781371. ------------ BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Appellant(s) : Mr. BK Jain, Advocate for the Appellant in MAC App No. 15/2017. Ms. RD Mozumdar, Advocate for respondents in MAC App 15/2017 For the State respondent(s) : Ms. RD Mozumdar, Advocate for the appellant in MAC App No. 336/2017. Mr. BK Jain, Advocate for the respondents in MAC App 336/2017 Date of hearing :27.08.2026 Date of Judgment &Order :07.09.2026 Page No.# 4/18 JUDGMENT & ORDER 1. Heard Ms. RD Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC Appeal Number 336/2017, as well as respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal Number 15/2017. Also heard Mr. BK Jain, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant in MAC Appeal No. 336/2017 as well as for the appellant in MAC Appeal No. 15/2017. 2. By this common judgment, this court proposes to dispose of these two connected appeals arising out of the same judgment. The MAC Appeal No. 336/2017 has been filed by the appellant, namely, the National Insurance Company Limited, impugning the judgment and award dated 07/09/2016, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 804/2011. In the said appeal, the appellant Insurance Company has impugned the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the liability to pay compensation by the present appellant was wrongly attributed by the Claims Tribunal on the present appellant, when the accident involved in this case is a clear case of accident resulted due to hit-and-run by an unknown vehicle. The appellant has also questioned the quantum of compensation paid by the Tribunal to the claimant. On the other hand, MAC Appeal No. 15/2017 has been filed by the claimant, Late Nirmal Talukdar, seeking enhancement of the quantum of compensation paid by the Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of both these appeals, the claimant, Nirmal Talukdar had expired and his legal heirs were substituted in his place. Page No.# 5/18 3. The facts relevant for consideration of both the appeals, in brief, are that on 6/7/2010, when the claimant, Late Nirmal Talukdar, was coming from Basistha Chariali to Beltola Tiniali in a motorcycle bearing registration number AS 01 AC 7454 as a pillion rider and when the said motorcycle reached near SBI Beltola Branch, just after overtaking an unknown motorcycle, the said unknown motorcycle knocked down the motorcycle, on which the claimant was riding, from backside. As a result of which both the claimant as well as rider of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries on their person. After the accident, the claimant was immediately taken to Agile Hospital at Beltola and from there, he was referred to GNRC Hospital for better treatment. In the GNRC Hospital, the claimant took treatment as an indoor patient from 06.07.2010 to 05.08.2010. A case i.e., Beltola PS case No. 320/2010 was also registered in connection with the aforesaid accident under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle, (i.e. the motorcycle, bearing registration number AS 01 AC 7454) did not contest the claim despite due service of notice on them and as such, the inquiry proceeded ex-parte against them. However, the appellant of MAC Appeal No. 336/2017i.e.,the National Insurance Company Limited contested the claim of the claimant by filing written statement, wherein it denied its liability to pay any compensation to the claimant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed following issues. Page No.# 6/18 “i. Whether the claimant, Nirmal Talukdar, sustained grievous injuries in the alleged road accident dated 06.07.2010 involving vehicle No. AS 01 AC-7454 (Motorcycle) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle? ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount is payable?” 6. In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company also examined 1 witness as DW 1 and also exhibited the FIR as well as the written ejahar filed in connection with the aforesaid case. However, ultimately, by the judgment and award, which has been impugned in both these appeals, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation amount of Rs 6,29,000/- along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till payment to the claimant. The appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay the said amount. 7. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in MAC Appeal No. 336/2017 has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in attributing the liability of paying the compensation on the appellant Insurance Company without taking into consideration the fact that this case was a case of hit-and-run by an unknown motorcycle. She submits that the evidence of DW-1, wherein the FIR as well as the written ejahar was exhibited by the witness for the Insurance Company, clearly shows that in the Page No.# 7/18 FIR, it has been stated that the accident was caused due to an unknown motorcycle. She further submits that the Tribunal also did not consider the statement of the claimant made during the cross-examination as PW-1, wherein he admitted that the police case was registered against the unknown motorcycle, which knocked down the motorcycle in which the claimant was riding. She further submits that under such circumstances, the proper course available for the claimant was to seek compensation under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. She has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC- 7454 was solely responsible for the accident, ignoring the fact that admittedly the aforesaid motorcycle was hit by an unknown motorcycle which has caused the accident. 8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted that the Tribunal also erred in ignoring the fact that the vouchers submitted by the claimant for expenses incurred on his treatment relates to the treatment of eye, which has no connection with the accident involved in this case. She submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that the claimant sustained injuries in his eye due to the aforesaid accident. As such, the vouchers against which compensation is claimed by the claimant for his medical treatment does not have any connection with the accident involved in this case, and the Tribunal failed to take this into consideration. 9. She further submits that the medical bills which were exhibited as Exhibit-17(1) to 17(41) do not have any corresponding prescriptions to relate the same with the expenses incurred on the treatment of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident involved in this case. As such, she submits that the Tribunal has erred in granting compensation to the claimant on the basis of Page No.# 8/18 medical documents which are not connected with the accident. Hence, she prays that the impugned judgment and award may be set aside and quashed. In support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has cited following rulings: a) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bismillah Bai & Others reported in (2009) 5 SCC 112. 10. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the claimant, has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly attributed the negligence which caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries, on the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454. He submits that merely because of the fact that in the FIR, which was lodged by the father of the claimant in connection with the aforesaid accident, it has been stated that the accident occurred due to an unknown motorcycle, it is not the conclusive finding regarding the cause of the accident. 11. He submits that the claimant, who was riding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454, has categorically deposed that while the claimant was sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454, which was driven by one Partha Pratim Talukdar, reached near SBI Beltola Branch at Beltola-Basistha Road, while overtaking one unknown vehicle, the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding on pillion applied the brake and the unknown motorcycle knocked down the said motorcycle from backside. He submits that sudden putting on brake by the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as pillion also contributed to the accident. Hence, he submits that this is a case of composite negligence of driver of both the motorcycles which resulted in the accident in which the claimant sustained injuries. Page No.# 9/18 12. He submits that in a case of composite negligence, the wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable for payment of the entire damages to the injured person, and such an injured person has a choice of proceeding against any of the wrongdoers or against both of them. He submits that the claimant has the option of claiming compensation from both the drivers or any of them. As such, he submits that no error on this count has been committed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment in attributing negligence on the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC- 7454.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the claimant has cited following rulings: a. T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 b. Jagdish Prasad Agarwalla v. Upendra Singh & Ors., reported in (2012) 2 GLT 15. 13. The learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that on death of the claimant after passing of the award by the Tribunal, the said award becomes estate of the deceased, and as such, his legal heirs are entitled to get the compensation awarded to the claimant, if he died before disbursement of the said award. 14. He submits that the claimant sustained multiple fractures on the frontal bone involving orbital roof, linear fracture of the left frontal bone involving orbital roof. He submits that damage to the orbital roof has directly caused harm to eyes and surrounding visual structures, for which he had to take treatment at Page No.# 10/18 various hospitals for a long term, and the Tribunal rightly took into consideration the expenses incurred on the treatment of injuries sustained by him, including the injuries sustained on his eyes. 15. He, however, submits that the claimant had incurred expenses up to about Rs. 10,00,000/- on treatment of injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. However, as he was busy in his treatment, he could not keep all the medical documents properly. As such, the Tribunal ought to have taken a holistic view of the matter and, apart from the vouchers exhibited by him, he ought to have been awarded some compensation on account of future treatment and some more compensation on account of expenditure incurred for incidental causes regarding his treatment. 16. The learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that though the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident, however, it was on the lower side inasmuch as it assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month only, in spite of the fact that the claimant has exhibited salary certificate as Exhibit-6, which indicates that his monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/-. As such, he submits that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation against the head 'Loss of Income'. 17. He further submits that due to injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant had to be accompanied by one attendant whenever he used to visit hospitals for his treatment. As such, he submits that enhanced compensation against expenditure incurred by the claimant towards payment of charges to Page No.# 11/18 attendant, nurse, transportation, and special food may be granted to him. 18. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that in a motor accident claims case, where the claimant is seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, he is not required to prove his claim beyond reasonable doubt. Even the strict procedural requirement of a civil case is also not applicable, though he is required to establish his case only on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Hence, he submits that the claimant has been able to prove that he sustained multiple injuries for which he had to take treatment for a long period of duration. He submits that the compensation awarded to him has to be commensurate with the expenses incurred by him, however, the compensation granted to him is on the lower side. Hence, he prays for modifying the award by enhancing the same to justify grant of just compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the aforementioned motor vehicular accident. 19. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 20. The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly attributed the negligence which caused the accident in which the claimant suffered injuries on the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-01-AC-7454, and whether it has correctly awarded the compensation amount of Rs. 6,29,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the above- Page No.# 12/18 mentioned accident. 21. The materials on record indicate that the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454, on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider, was hit by an unidentified motorcycle, as a result of which the accident had occurred. The question to be examined is as to whether the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as pillion was also negligent in some manner which contributed to the accident, or whether it was solely because of the negligence of the driver of the unidentified motorcycle. 22. It appears that though in the FIR which was lodged in connection with the aforesaid accident, it has been mentioned that the accident occurred due to an unknown motorcycle, however, there is no indication in the said FIR that the description of the accident as mentioned in the FIR is on the basis of an account of any eyewitness. Whereas, in the claim petition filed by the claimant, namely, late Nirmal Talukdar, as well as in his evidence-on-affidavit submitted before the Claims Tribunal, he has categorically stated that when the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider overtook an unknown vehicle and he applied brakes, the unknown motorcycle knocked down the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding from backside. This fact of trying to overtake the unknown vehicle by the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding, as well as application of brakes by him which resulted in the unknown motorcycle hitting the motorcycle in which the claimant was riding from behind, has not been controverted by the insurance company during cross-examination of PW-1. Neither any other evidence has been adduced by the insurance company to counter the evidence of the claimant witness, that is PW-1, who was an eyewitness of the accident. Page No.# 13/18 23. The fact that the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was sitting as a pillion rider tried to overtake the unknown vehicle and while doing so applied brake could not be controverted by the insurance company during cross-examination of PW-1. After going through the testimony of PW-1, this Court is of considered opinion that the uncontroverted fact that the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was sitting as a pillion rider, trying to overtake and then applying brakes, also contributed to the cause of accident which occurred on the fateful day. 24. While discussing a scenario in which two or more vehicles were involved and there appears to be negligence on the part of two or more persons which caused the accident, the Supreme Court of India in the case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (supra) has observed as follows: “6. Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his Page No.# 14/18 contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.” 25. In the instant case also, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it appears that the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider as well as that of the unknown motorcycle were both negligent, which caused the fateful accident. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that this is a case of composite negligence of the drivers of both the motorcycles involved in the accident. As such, owners and drivers of both the motorcycles are jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of entire damages, and it was the option available with the claimant to proceed against both of them or any of them. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the Tribunal was not wrong in attributing the negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider, though this Court is not in agreement with the Tribunal that the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider is solely responsible for the accident in which the claimant sustained injuries. 26. Let us now consider as to whether the cash memos and other medical documents exhibited by the claimant pertains to the treatment of injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. 27. On perusal of Exhibit-2, which is the discharge summary and advice slip Page No.# 15/18 issued by the GNRC Hospital, it indicates that the claimant was admitted in the GNRC Hospital on 06.07.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 05.08.2010. He was admitted as a case of injury in a road traffic accident which occurred on 06.07.2010 at 4:30 PM at Beltola. It also appears that the claimant sustained multiple injuries on his person, including extradural hematoma in right frontal region, contusion in left frontal and temporal region, multiple comminated depressed fracture of right frontal bone involving the orbital roof, linear fracture of left frontal bone involving orbital roof, fracture of anterior and posterior wall of right maxillary sinus and fracture of right lateral orbital wall, collections in maxillary, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses. Mere perusal of the discharge certificate indicates that the claimant sustained multiple injuries on his face, including fracture of right orbital wall as well as left orbital wall and orbital roof. Exhibit-15, which are the photographs of the claimant while he was admitted in the GNRC Hospital, also indicate that he sustained injuries on his right eyes. 28. Moreover, Exhibit-2 clearly indicates that the claimant suffered fracture of both the right and left orbital roofs. The orbital roof forms the bony ceiling of the eye socket, sitting in direct physical proximity to eyeball and surrounding ocular tissues. The injury to orbital roof is likely to cause damage to eyes also, and the medical documents exhibited by the claimant indicates that he took treatment for his eyes, more specifically the right eye, for a long period of time. 29. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the medical documents, including the cash memos and prescriptions referred to and exhibited by the claimant, relates to the treatment of injuries sustained by him in the above- mentioned motor vehicular accident. As such, the Tribunal was right in awarding compensation against the medical expenses incurred by the claimant for Page No.# 16/18 treatment of injuries which he sustained in the above-mentioned motor vehicular accident. 30. The Tribunal has also awarded a reasonable compensation against the heads 'pain and suffering', 'loss of amenities of life', 'incidental expenditure towards hospitalisation, transportation, special food and nursing'. As such, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the same. 31. As regards the compensation awarded against loss of income on account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the aforementioned vehicular accident, this Court is of opinion that though the claimant did not specifically adduce any evidence to show the period for which he sustained loss of income due to injuries suffered by him in the aforementioned vehicular accident, however, considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the claimant for such injuries, the Tribunal has awarded compensation for loss of earning for a period of one year, taking his monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- per month. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the said assessment. 32. Though, the claimant has exhibited a salary certificate issued by one Sri S.R. Haloi, who is a Class-I (A) contractor, wherein he had certified that for the last 13 months the claimant was serving as site supervisor under him for construction work and he used to get Rs. 6,000/- per month as his salary; however, a bare perusal of the said certificate indicates that the nature of employment was purely temporary and was only for the last 13 months prior to issuance of the certificate. Moreover, the person who issued the said certificate was also not examined by the claimant to corroborate his testimony that he was Page No.# 17/18 getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that the Tribunal was not wrong in taking the salary of the claimant on the basis of lump sum at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, this Court sees no justification for interfering with the compensation awarded against loss of income to the claimant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment and award. 33. However, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded an interest of 6% only on the awarded compensation, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is bad in law in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Singh v. Nishant Sharma & Anr., reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353, wherein it has observed as follows:- “15. Further, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal which was enhanced to 7.5% by the High Court. The interest rates determined by both the courts below are bad in law as per the legal principles laid down in MCD v. Uphaar Tragedy Victims Assn. (2011) 14 SCC 481 :, wherein this Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants. Applying the same legal principles, we grant interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded by this Court.” 34. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the compensation of Rs. Page No.# 18/18 6,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant may be regarded as a just compensation. However, the interest of 6% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. 35. In view of the above discussion, the insurance company is directed to deposit the outstanding due against the compensation awarded to the claimant in pursuant to the observations made in the instant judgment before the Registry of this Court within six weeks from the date of this judgment. On such deposit being made, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the original claimant who were substituted in his place in both the appeals on his death. 36. In view of the discussions made above, MAC App. No. 15/2017 is partly allowed, whereas MAC App. No. 336/2017 is dismissed. 37. The Registry shall send back the records of MAC Case No. 804/2011 to the concerned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment immediately. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Nabajyoti Haloi Digitally signed by Nabajyoti Haloi Date: 2026.09.07 05:14:24 -07'00'