Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010288182018 2026:GAU-AS:13000 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./153/2019 ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT UNDERTAKING HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007 REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE, ULUBARI, GUWAHATI 781007 VERSUS SMTI DIPALI KALITA AND 6 ORS W/O LATE SAMBHU KALITA, RESIDENT OF KAILASHPUR, PO ASSAM SCHIVALAYA, PS DISPUR, GUWAHATI , DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM, 781006 3:MISS PUROBI KALITA D/O LATE SAMBHU KALITA RESIDENT OF KAILASHPUR PO ASSAM SCHIVALAYA PS DISPUR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781006 4:SRI BIKASH KALITA S/O LATE SAMBHU KALITA RESIDENT OF KAILASHPUR PO ASSAM SCHIVALAYA PS DISPUR GUWAHATI Page No.# 2/10 DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781006 5:SRI HEMANTA KALITA S/O LATE SAMBHU KALITA RESIDENT OF KAILASHPUR PO ASSAM SCHIVALAYA PS DISPUR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 781006 6:SRI MAKUB HAZARIKA S/O LATE MAZNU HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 5 UDAYACHAL CHRISTAIN BASTI PO CHRISTAIN BASTI PS DISPUR GUWAHATI DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM OWNER 7:AZAHAR ALI S/O AZID ALI R/O VILLAGE DIPTA PO SURADI PS NALBARI ASSAM 781340 DRIVE Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R D MOZUMDAR, MS. C MOZUMDAR,MR. S P SHARMA,MS J ROY Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S K DEORI, S I AKAND (R-1,3,4,5),MR. R Deka (R- 1,3,4,5),MR. B DEORI (R-2,3),MS. SOMILA Page No.# 3/10 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 08.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Ms. R. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. I. Akand, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for respondent Nos. 6 & 7 despite service of notice. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 05.10.2018, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 134/2016, whereby the learned Tribunal, while holding the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BU-6307 responsible for the accident resulting in the death of Lachit Kalita, awarded compensation of Rs. 10,12,800/- in favour of the respondents-claimants along with interest at the bank rate and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the said Page No.# 4/10 compensation amount. 3. It may be noted at the outset that the learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award dated 05.10.2018, disposed of both MAC Case No. 134/2016 and MAC Case No. 168/2016. However, the present appeal has been preferred only against the judgment and award insofar as it relates to MAC Case No. 134/2016. The decision of the learned Tribunal in MAC Case No. 168/2016 has not been assailed in the present appeal and therefore, the adjudication in the present proceedings is confined to the claim arising out of MAC Case No. 134/2016. 4. The facts, in brief, as emerges from the record, are that on 23.12.2015, at about 7:30 p.m., the deceased Lachit Kalita, while proceeding on the GMCH Road near Manasha Mandir under Bhangagarh Police Station, was hit by a motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BU-6307, which was being ridden by Azahar Ali with Rajib Hazarika as pillion rider. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and was admitted to Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment. The claimants, being the mother, brothers and sister of the deceased, accordingly instituted the claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of the deceased. 5. The appellant/Insurance Company entered appearance before the learned Tribunal and contested the claim petition by filing its written statement, denying the allegations made therein and disputing its liability to satisfy the claim. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle also contested the claim petition. In support of their respective cases, the claimants adduced oral and documentary Page No.# 5/10 evidence, while the appellant/Insurance Company examined 2 (two) witnesses as DWs and exhibited certain documents in support of the pleas taken in its written statement. 6. The learned Tribunal, upon the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BU-6307 on the part of its driver and whether the said accident resulted in the death of Lachit Kalita? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation and, if yes, what should be the quantum and from whom the same is recoverable? 7. Thereafter, upon consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties and the materials available on record, the learned Tribunal answered the issues in favour of the claimants. The learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending motorcycle and the deceased Lachit Kalita sustained injuries in the said accident and subsequently succumbed to such injuries. The learned Tribunal further held the appellant/ Insurance Company liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs. 10,12,800/- in favour of the claimants. 8. The main defence of the appellant/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal, as also in the present appeal, is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, absolving the appellant from its liability to indemnify the owner. Further, in absence of any satisfactory proof of the income of the deceased, the learned Page No.# 6/10 Tribunal erred in assessing his monthly income at Rs. 6,500/- for the purpose of computation of compensation. 9. Mr. R. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant/ Insurance Company, submits that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability upon the appellant despite the evidence adduced by the appellant to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The driving licence number furnished in respect of the driver, Azahar Ali, was not issued in his name by the DTO, Nalbari, and the said licence number was found to have been issued in the name of another person, namely, Madhu Kalita. The aforesaid evidence clearly establishes a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the owner and driver. Therefore, the appellant could not have been directed to indemnify the owner. 10. Ms. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, further submits that the learned Tribunal also erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding his occupation or actual income. She submits that when the profession and income of the deceased were not established by any documentary or other reliable evidence, the compensation ought to have been assessed by taking an appropriate notional income and not on the basis of the income adopted by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, she submits that the impugned judgment and award, to the extent it fastens liability upon the appellant and assesses the compensation on the aforesaid basis, is liable to be interfered with. 11. Having submitted above, Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant, fairly submits that, even if the appellant is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, the appellant may be permitted to deposit the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal and be granted liberty to recover the same from Page No.# 7/10 respondent Nos. 6 & 7, namely, Makub Hazarika and Azahar Ali, respectively, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively. 12. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have carefully gone through the records, including impugned judgment and award. 13. The principal issue which arise for consideration in the present appeal are, firstly, whether the appellant/Insurance Company has been rightly fastened with the liability to satisfy the award in view of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time and, secondly, whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal calls for any interference, particularly with regard to the assessment of the monthly income of the deceased. 14. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 23.12.2015, involving the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-BU-6307, which was being driven by respondent No. 7, Azahar Ali. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the evidence and materials available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said motorcycle and the injuries sustained by Lachit Kalita resulted in his death. The said finding has not been seriously assailed before this Court and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same. 15. The primary defence of the appellant/Insurance Company is essentially with regard to the validity of the driving licence of respondent No. 7. The appellant had contended before the learned Tribunal that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the driving licence particulars furnished in respect of him were not genuine. The Page No.# 8/10 evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant was also directed towards establishing the said breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 16. Having considered the materials on record, this Court finds that the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 7 herein, was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. The said position amounts to a breach of the condition of the insurance policy. However, the said breach does not require the third-party claimants to be deprived of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. The liability of the appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance and its right to recover the amount so paid from the person responsible for the breach are required to be considered in that context. 17. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,500/- after noticing that no documentary evidence regarding his income was produced. On the basis of the age of the deceased, the learned Tribunal applied the multiplier of 18 and after adding 40% towards future prospects and deducting 50% towards personal expenses, computed the loss of dependency at Rs. 9,82,800/-. The learned Tribunal further awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, thereby arriving at a total compensation of Rs. 10,12,800/-. 18. The appellant has questioned the aforesaid assessment on the ground that in the absence of satisfactory proof of the occupation and income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal ought to have adopted a lower notional income. It is true that the claimants did not produce documentary evidence to substantiate the pleaded monthly income of Rs. 8,000/-. However, the mere absence of documentary proof of income does not necessarily require the Court to adopt the lowest possible notional income. The assessment has to be made Page No.# 9/10 having regard to the age of the deceased and the circumstances emerging from the evidence and materials on record. 19. In the present case, the deceased was only 19 years of age at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal, having considered the prevailing economic conditions and the circumstances of the case, assessed his monthly income at Rs. 6,500/-. On an overall consideration of the manner in which the compensation has been computed, including the addition towards future prospects, the deduction towards personal expenses and the application of the multiplier of 18, this Court does not find sufficient ground to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Accordingly, the award of Rs. 10,12,800/- is maintained. 20. Coming to the liability of the appellant/Insurance Company, learned counsel for the appellant, while maintaining the contention regarding the absence of a valid driving licence, has fairly submitted that in the event the appellant is directed to satisfy the award in the first instance, liberty may be granted to recover the amount so deposited from respondent Nos. 6 & 7, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively. 21. In view of the foregoing discussions and having regard to the admitted position regarding the absence of a valid driving licence in the hands of respondent No. 7 at the relevant time, this Court is of the considered view that the interest of justice would be served by directing the appellant/Insurance Company to satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount so paid from respondent No. 7. 22. Accordingly, the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit the awarded amount of Rs.10,12,800/- before the learned Motor Accident Claim Page No.# 10/10 Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from today. Upon such deposit, the learned Tribunal shall permit the respondent- claimants to withdraw the amount, on proper verification and identification, in accordance with law and subject to the directions contained in the impugned judgment and award. 23. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. shall, however, be at liberty to recover the amount so deposited and paid to the claimants from respondent Nos. 6 & 7, namely, Makub Hazarika and Azahar Ali, respectively, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, respectively. 24. The appeal stands disposed of in terms above. 25. The statutory deposit, if any, shall be returned to the insurance company along with the interest. 26. Registry to send back the records to the learned Tribunal forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment and order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant