Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010136322020 2026:GAU-AS:7689 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./229/2020 AMIRUZ ZAMAN S/O- MOHOR ALI, VILL.- KONGKAIR PUB PAR, P.S. AND P.O. BAGUAN, DIST.- GOALPARA, ASSAM, PIN- 783101. VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BONGAIGAON DIVISION, P.O., P.S. AND DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. (INSURER OF VEHICLE NO. AS-18/D-7799). 2:RONJON BISWAS S/O- CHARAN BISWAS VILL.- GOBINDAPUR P.S. AND DIST.- GOALPARA ASSAM, PIN- 783101. (THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-18/D-7799). 3:D.M. RELIANCE GENERAL INS. COM. LTD. DIHANG ARCADE 4TH FLOOR ABC G.S. ROAD GUWAHATI- 781005 BRANCH INSURANCE OFFICE- HIMALAYA HOUSE 5TH FLOOR 38 BJL NEHRU ROAD KOLKATA- 700071, WEST BENGAL. INSURER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS/18-E/0418 Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Appellant : Mr. M. U. Mondal, Advocate For the Respondents : Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, Advocate (for respondent No. 1) : Mr. D. Baruah, Advocate (for respondent No. 2) : Mr. T. Kalita, Advocate (for respondent No. 3) Date of Hearing : 29.01.2026 Date of Judgment : 25.05.2026 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for respondent No. 3. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant, Amiruz Zaman impugning the judgment and award dated 20.02.2020, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara, in MAC Case No. 308/2017, whereby the respondent No.1/Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.1,30,360/- along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the present appellant. The appellant is mainly aggrieved with the quantum of compensation Page No.# 3/8 awarded to him. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 16thApril 2017, at about 3.15 PM, the present appellant was returning back to his native village, namely, Kongkair Pubpar from Goalpara, by riding on his vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-18-E-0418. When he reached Bogulamari Tiniali, another vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-18-D-7799 being driven in a rash and negligent manner collided with the vehicle in which the appellant was travelling, from opposite direction. As a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries on his person and he was immediately shifted to Goalpara Civil Hospital and from there to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital for better treatment. A criminal case, namely, Goalpara P.S. Case No. 159/2017, under Sections 279/338/427 of the Indian Penal Code was also registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in respect of the aforementioned accident. 4. Thereafter, the present appellant approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid accident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 308/2017. The respondents contested the claim of the appellant by filing separate written statements and taking the separate written statements denying theirliability to pay any compensation to the present appellant. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara had framed the following issues in the aforementioned MACCase:- Page No.# 4/8 “(i) Whether the claimant Md. Amiruz Zaman sustained injuries in the alleged motor vehicle accident on 16.04.2017 involving vehicle bearing registration No. AS-18/D-7799 and AS-18-E-0418 and whether the said accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of both the aforesaid vehicle? (ii) Whether the claimant side is entitled to any compensation, if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?” 6. To prove his case, the claimant side examined three witnesses including himself. However, the respondents did not adduce any evidence in the above-mentioned claims case. Ultimately, by the judgment and award which has been impugned in this instant appeal, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara held that the appellant sustained no permanent disability. However, for the injuries sustained by him in the aforementioned accident, a compensation amount of Rs.1,30,360/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum was awarded to him and the present respondent No. 1, namely, Oriental Insurance Company Limited was directed to pay the compensation which has been awarded to the claimant. The said judgment and award has been impugned in the instant appeal. 7. Mr. M.U. Mondal, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara had erred in passing the impugned judgment and award by holding therein that the appellant suffered from no permanent disability. He submits that the doctor who was examined as PW-3 by the claimant has categorically stated in his testimony that the appellant suffered from 40% disability. However, same was Page No.# 5/8 wrongfully not taken into consideration by the tribunal while coming to a conclusion that the claimant did not suffer from any permanent disability. 8. He submits that taking into consideration the permanent disability of the appellant at 40%, his functional disability may also be assessed at 40% and thereafter the adequate compensation against the head loss of future earning capacity should be awarded and the compensation granted to the appellant by the impugned judgment and award may be accordingly enhanced. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the tribunal has disbelieved the disability certificate issued by the PW-3 mainly because of the fact that the medical board member which examined the appellant assessed the permanent disability at 40% on the basis of earlier medical documents and, however, he submits that such assessment on the basis of earlier documents is admissible in evidence and is not wrong. In support of his submission, he has cited the observation made by the Apex Court in paragraph No.24 of the judgment in the case of “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another”, reported in “(2011) 1 SCC 343”. 10. On the other hand, Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/Insurance Company has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara has correctly come to conclusion that the appellant suffered from no permanent disability as he only sustained the fracture of the clavicle bone and laceration of left thigh and laceration on some other parts of the body which has not resulted into any permanent disability. 11. She further submits that the disability certificate given by the doctor which was exhibited as Exhibit-4 was issued on the basis of documents of the Page No.# 6/8 medical examination of the appellant in downtown hospital without indicating as to on what basis 40% permanent disability was assessed whereas apparently for fracture of clavicle no permanent disability has been resulted. She submits that the disability certificate was apparently issued by doctors who had not treated the appellant and without proper medical assessment a ready to use disability certificate was issued. She submits that the Tribunal has otherwise awarded just compensation to the appellant under other heads and said assessment made by the tribunal does not warrant any interference by this court and hence prays for dismissing the appeal. In support of her submissions, she has also cited the same ruling which has been cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 13. Main point for determination in this appeal is as to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara was right in awarding compensation of Rs.1,30,360/- to the present appellant by coming to conclusion that he suffered from no permanent disability in the accident which had occurred on 16thApril, 2017. 14. On perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the accident in which the appellant sustained injuries had occurred on 16th April, 2017 and on that day itself the appellant was taken to 200 bedded Civil Hospital at Goalpara where he was given treatment. Page No.# 7/8 15. On perusal of the medical examination report issued by the said hospital which was exhibited as Exhibit-3, it becomes clear that the appellant sustained fracture of left clavicle only and suffered lacerated injuries on his thigh and right index finger. There is no indication of any fracture of thigh in the said injury report. Even the discharge certificate issued by downtown hospital which was exhibited as Exhibit-6 only shows degloving injuries of right thigh with fracture of right left clavicle and no indication of any fracture of any thigh bone has been indicated therein. It is pertinent to note herein that it is an accepted fact that majority of clavicle fractures get healed completely with proper conservative treatments. In the instant case there is no material on record to show that the clavicle fracture of the appellant did not repair or was not cured or it led to other complications. 16. Similarly, there is no fracture of thigh bone as claimed by the appellant only debridement of degloving injury of the thigh was surgically done and there is no indication that what kind of disability was resulted there from. Mere production of a disability certificate in itself would not compel the tribunal to accept the same unless it is satisfied that the accident has actually resulted into any physical disability as claimed in the certificate which is relied upon by the appellant. 17. There is no material on record to indicate that whether the appellant suffered from locomotor disability or sensory disability or whether he suffered from structural disability or functional disability. Neither the appellant has indicated the same in his evidence. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no error on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in holding that the claimant/present appellant has not suffered from any Page No.# 8/8 permanent disability. 18. This Court is of considered opinion that the tribunal has awarded just compensation under appropriate heads to the present appellant which does not require any interference by this court. 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in foregoing paragraph, this court is of considered opinion that this appeal lacks merit and accordingly same is dismissed. 20. Send back the record of MAC Case No. 308/2017 to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Goalpara along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Abhishek Prem Digitally signed by Abhishek Prem Date: 2026.06.03 11:13:12 +05'30'