GAHC010177962015 2026:GAU-AS:13858 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./180/2015 MUSST. RABIA KHATUN and ANR W/O MD. JAMIR ALI 2: MD. JAMIR ALI S/O LATE FAIZUDDIN BOTH ARE R/O VILL. KOIADAL DHANKALI P.O. and P.S. JAGIROAD DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM VERSUS MD INTAJUL ALI and ANR S/O MD. IRFAN ALI, R/O VILL. TELAHI BALPUKHURI, P.S. DHARAMTUL, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM. 2:REGIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. GUWAHATI REGIONAL OFFICE ULUBARI GUWAHATI- Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M TALUKDAR, MS.D KALITA Advocate for the Respondent : MR.N HOQUER-1, MS R D MAZUMDAR, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 17.09.2026 Heard Mr. M Talukdar, learned counsel for the claimants. Also heard Ms. R D Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/insurance company. 2. Office Note dated 06.01.2020 indicates that service in respect of the respondent No. 1 complete, however, there is no representation on behalf of the said respondent on call. 3. By way of this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended, the claimants are claiming enhancement of the compensation awarded by the judgment and order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam in MAC Case No. 44/2012. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 06.02.2012, the son of the claimant was crossing the National Highway No. 37 at Bamfar Dikshak near PFL Company when suddenly the vehicle owned by the opposite party No. 1 coming from Jagiroad towards Guwahati in a rash and negligent manner knocked down their son from the back side. As a result, he sustained multiple grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter he was taken to Jagiroad S.H.C. for treatment wherefrom he was referred to GMCH, Guwahati where he died on the same day. The deceased was 20 years of age at the time of the accident and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, leaving behind his parents being the dependent of the deceased. 5. Accordingly, a claim petition was filed before the learned Member, MACT, Morigaon, wherein the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties, by judgment and order dated 30.07.2014 awarded Rs. Page 3 of 11 4,51,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty One Thousand) only with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. The claimants being not satisfied with the adequacy of the awarded compensation, have preferred the instant appeal. 6. Mr. M Talukdar, learned counsel for the claimants, referring to the evidence on record, submits that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 6,000/-. It is, therefore, contended that the learned Tribunal, having assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/-, has erred in assessing the compensation and the same warrants interference and enhancement by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has also erred in not taking into consideration the future prospects of the deceased while computing the compensation. The deceased was aged about 20 years at the time of the accident and, having regard to his age, at least 50% ought to have been added to his income towards future prospects in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited -Vs- Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to award appropriate compensation towards loss of estate and funeral expenses in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). It is also submitted that no amount towards loss of consortium has been awarded to the parents of the deceased and, therefore, the compensation under the aforesaid conventional heads is also liable to be suitably enhanced in accordance with law. Learned counsel lastly submits that the interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum is on the lower side and ought to have been awarded at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization of the awarded amount. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified and the compensation suitably enhanced. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following decisions: (i) Narendra Singh -Vs- Nishant Sharma and Anr. reported in (2015) 14 SCC 353 (ii) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd -Vs- Niru @ Niharika & Ors. in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11340 of 2020. (iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd -Vs- Omenchiba, reported in 2023 Legal Eagle (GAU) 545 (iv) Josphine Jemes -Vs- United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. reported in 2013 (4) T.A.C. 22 (S.C.) (v) Waghji Laxman Aayar -Vs- Arjan Vala Ahir and Ors. reported in 2013 (4) T.A.C. 28 (Guj) (vi) Golap Lata Goswami and Anr -Vs- Ajit Deka and Ors. reported in 2016 (2) T.A.C. 896 (Gau) (vii) National Insurance Company Ltd. -Vs- Mithu Singh and Ors., reported in 2016 (2) T.A.C. 905 (P&H) (viii) Mrs. Karima Begum -Vs- Badsha Bhuyan and Ors. reported in 2018 (2) T.A.C. 198 (Gau) 7. Per contra, Ms. R D Mazumdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/insurance company submits that the claimants, having failed to prove the income of the deceased by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, the learned Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/-. It is contended that the burden was upon the claimants to establish the income and earning capacity of the deceased by leading cogent and convincing evidence before the learned Tribunal. Since the claimants failed to discharge the said burden and could not establish that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month, no interference with the finding of the learned Tribunal on the question of income is warranted. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 further submits that, in the absence of any reliable evidence establishing the alleged income of Rs. 6,000/- per month, the claimants are not entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation on that basis. It is, accordingly, submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference by this Court. In support of her submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 places reliance upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Syed Sadiq etc. -Vs- Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company, reported in 2014 (1) T.A.C. 369 (S.C.), and Rani & Ors. -Vs- National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2018 STPL 9049 SC. 8. I have given my prudent considerations to the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar. 9. The instant appeal is confined to the question as to whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate, the challenge being at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement thereof. This Court, while exercising its appellate jurisdiction, is, therefore, entitled to re-appreciate the evidence on record and examine the various components on the basis of which the compensation has been determined, so as to ascertain whether the claimants have been awarded just compensation in accordance with law. If, upon such examination, this Court finds that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal falls short of the just compensation to which the claimants are entitled, this Court can suitably modify and enhance the same. It is, therefore, necessary to examine the claim for enhancement under the respective heads in the light of the evidence on record and the principles governing determination of compensation. 10. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, let me now turn to the materials available on record. 11. It appears that, in order to establish the income of the deceased, the claimants examined claimant No. 1, who is the mother of the deceased, as PW-1. In her deposition, PW-1 stated that the deceased was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month by carrying on the business of selling plastic utensils. In support of the said contention, the claimants exhibited a document as Exhibit-5, purportedly issued by one Akbar Ali, stated to be a wholesaler of plastic products. In the said document, Akbar Ali certified that the deceased had been purchasing plastic utensils from his shop for about four years and used to sell the same from village to village by cycle. He further certified that, from the said business, the deceased used to earn approximately Rs. 6,000/- to Rs. 7,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal, however, assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 4,000/- and accordingly determined his annual income at Rs. 48,000/-. While doing so, the learned Tribunal observed that Exhibit-5 was issued on plain paper, that there was no material on record to establish that its author, namely, Akbar Ali, was a wholesaler of plastic products, and that the said author was also not examined as a witness. 12. It is well settled that the onus lies upon the claimant to establish the income of the deceased by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. At the same time, in a claim for compensation arising out of a motor accident, the Court is required to adopt a realistic approach while determining just compensation. The Apex Court in Sunita and Ors. -Vs- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., reported in (2020) 13 SCC 486, has held that the approach of the Tribunal should be to undertake a holistic analysis of the pleadings and evidence by applying the principle of preponderance of probabilities. Once the fundamental fact of occurrence of the accident is established, the Tribunal is required to determine the quantum of just compensation arising out of the accident and, while doing so, is not to be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. 13. In Anita Sharma and Ors. -Vs- New India Assurance Company Limited and Anr., reported in (2021) 1 SCC 171, the Apex Court has reiterated that, in motor accident claim proceedings, the standard of proof is that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. It has further been observed that the approach of the Court, while examining the evidence in such proceedings, ought not to be akin to that adopted in a criminal trial by insisting upon the examination of every possible or best witness. Rather, the Court is required to analyse the material placed on record and ascertain whether the version of the claimant is more likely than not to be true. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment reads as under: “21. Equally, we are concerned over the failure of the High Court to be cognizant of the fact that strict principles of evidence and standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in MACT claim cases. The standard of proof in such like matters is one of preponderance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases ought not to be to find fault with non- examination of some best eyewitnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial, but, instead should be only to analyse the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimant's version is more likely than not true.” 14. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the claimants have failed to establish by cogent and reliable evidence that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Claimant No. 1, who was examined as PW-1, stated that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from the business of plastic utensils. However, she did not state anything in her deposition regarding the author of Exhibit-5, namely, Akbar Ali, his business, or the basis on which the income of the deceased was certified in the said document. Except exhibiting Exhibit-5, no evidence was adduced to establish the credentials of its author or the correctness of the income mentioned therein. The author of the said document was also not examined as a witness. Thus, the claim of the claimants that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month cannot be accepted. At the same time, the evidence of PW-1 regarding the occupation of the deceased cannot be altogether disregarded. It has come on record that the deceased was engaged in the business of selling plastic utensils from village to village by cycle. Having regard to the nature of his occupation and the circumstances in which such business was being carried on, it may not be realistic to expect formal documentary evidence reflecting his actual earnings. The income, therefore, has to be assessed on the basis of the evidence available on record and the probabilities arising therefrom, keeping in view the requirement of awarding just compensation. Considering the evidence on record in its entirety, this Court is of the view that a monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- would be a reasonable assessment of the income of the deceased. Accordingly, the monthly income of the deceased is modified and enhanced from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. The question of addition towards future prospects and the consequential computation of loss of dependency are considered hereinafter. Page 9 of 11 15. Since the deceased was self-employed and was below the age of 40 years at the time of the accident, an addition of 40% of his income towards future prospects is required to be made in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra). The learned Tribunal, having failed to make such addition, the same is required to be suitably modified. Accordingly, 40% of the monthly income of Rs. 5,000/-, i.e. Rs. 2,000/-, is added towards future prospects, thereby taking the monthly income for the purpose of computation of loss of dependency to Rs. 7,000/-. Consequently, the annual income, inclusive of future prospects, comes to Rs. 84,000/- (Rs. 7,000/- × 12). Applying the multiplier of 18 and deducting 50% towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, the loss of dependency would come to Rs. 7,56,000/- (Rs. 84,000/- × 18 × 50%). 16. It further appears that, in terms of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are also entitled to compensation under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal had awarded only Rs. 4,000/-, Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- respectively under the aforesaid heads. The amounts so awarded being inadequate, the same are liable to be suitably modified in accordance with the principles laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, the amount under the head of loss of estate is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-, loss of consortium to Rs. 40,000/- each for claimant Nos. 1 and 2, and funeral expenses to Rs. 15,000/-. The aforesaid amount shall be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three year period, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). Accordingly, in the facts of the present case, as the relevant period extends to six years, the aforesaid amount shall be enhanced by 10% on two occasions. Page 10 of 11 17. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 3,500/- X 12 X 18 = Rs. 7,56,000/- Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- × 2 = Rs. 80,000/- Rs. 80,000/- +10%= Rs.88,000/- Rs. 88,000/- + 10% = Rs. 96,800/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- + 10% = Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- + 10% = Rs. 18,150/- Loss of Estate Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 15,000/- + 10% = Rs. 16,500/- Rs. 16,500/- + 10% = Rs. 18,150/- Total Rs. 8,89,100/- Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is assessed at Rs. 8,89,100/-. 18. Now, turning to the submission of learned counsel for the claimants that the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 6% per annum is inadequate and ought to have been fixed at 9% per annum, it is to be noted that the award of interest on the amount of compensation is a matter within the judicial discretion of the Court, to be exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Having regard to the fact that the rate of 6% per annum is somewhat modest, this Court is of the view that interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum would meet the ends of justice. At the same time, there is nothing on record to indicate any delay attributable to respondent No. 2/insurance company in complying with the award. On the contrary, respondent No. 2 has not preferred any appeal against the award and has already deposited the awarded compensation in terms thereof. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, the rate of interest is modified from 6% to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. The prayer for enhancement of interest to 9% per annum is, accordingly, rejected. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the claimants are held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,38,100/- (Rupees Four Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand One Hundred) only, over and above the compensation of Rs. 4,51,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty One Thousand) awarded by the learned Tribunal. The respondent No. 2/insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,38,100/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, through the learned Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 20. The judgment and order dated judgment and order dated 30.07.2014 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, Assam in MAC Case No. 44/2012 is accordingly stands modified to the aforesaid extent. 21. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 22. Send back the TCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant