Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010150052017 2026:GAU-AS:7691 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./604/2017 RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19 RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND ONE OF ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI. VERSUS SRI SANAT KR. PAL, S/O LATE MADAN MOHAN PAL, R/O VILL. ANANDA NAGAR, P.S. SINGUR, DIST. HOOGLY, WEST BENGAL 2:SMTI RUPA PAL W/O SANAT PAL R/O VILL. ANANDA NAGAR P.S. SINGUR DIST. HOOGLY WEST BENGAL 3:RANJIT DAS S/O SRI RAM DAS VILL. TEPSIA P.S. BOKO DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM. 4:BIPUL CH. BARUAH S/O LATE JATIN CH. BARUAH VILL. LACHIT NAGAR SIVASAGAR P.S. SIVASAGAR DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the appellant : Mr. K. K. Bhatta, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, Advocate Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026 Date of Judgment : 02.06.2026 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for claimant/respondent. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 has been filed by the appellant, namely, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited impugning the Judgment and Award dated 16.02.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (FTC), No. 3, Kamrup(M), in MAC Case No. 362/2011, whereby the appellant/Insurance Company has been directed to pay, to the claimants, an amount of Rs.17,05,000/- along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing till realization. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that the present respondents/claimants approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (FTC), No. 3, Kamrup(M) by filing an Page No.# 3/8 application under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 praying for compensation on account of death of their son in a motor vehicular accident on 07.12.2010 involving Scorpio vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AM-2917. The present appellant contested the claim of the claimants by filing written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has framed following issues: - “i. Whether victim Partha Pal died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident dated 07.12.2010 involving vehicle no. AS-01-AM-2917 (Scorpio) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? ii. Whether the claimantsare entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? 4. In support of their claim, the claimants adduced evidence of four witnesses during the inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Whereas, the present appellant adduced evidence of one witness. Ultimately, after completion of the inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge (FTC), No. 3, Kamrup(M) passed the impugned judgment and award whereby the appellant was directed to pay compensation to the claimants in the manner as already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. 5. Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Insurance Company has filed this appeal on being aggrieved Page No.# 4/8 only with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred on two counts in computing the quantum of the compensation which was directed to be paid to the claimants. He submits that the deceased was only doing a contractual job i.e., he was not having any permanent job at the time of his death, hence, against the component of loss of future earning, addition of 40% of the annual income of the deceased should have been made in terms of the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in“(2017) 16 SCC 680”. He,however, submits that the tribunal has erroneously added 50% of the earning of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. He further submits that the tribunal was also wrong in assessing an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- on account of loss of love and care to the claimants. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that as per the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the amount Rs.15,000/- ought to have been computed against the component loss of estate, whereas against the funeral expenses, an amount of Rs.15,000/- should have been computed and against the amount of loss of consortium, an amount of Rs.80,000/- ought to have been computed. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that when there is no cross-objection filed by the claimant, the awarded amount cannot be enhanced by the court in appeal and in support of his submission, he has cited following rulings:- (i) “Manorma Sinha and another Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another” reported in “2025 INSC 1237”. Page No.# 5/8 (ii)“Ranjana Prakash and others Vs. Divisional Manager and another”reported in “(2011) 14 SCC 639” 8. On the other hand, Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, the learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal had erred in assessing the annual income of the deceased on lower side at Rs.10,000/- per month when there was clear uncontroverted evidence on record which suggests that the net monthly income of the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.11,872/-. He submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, the compensation awarded to the claimants may be re-assessed and may be enhanced, though there is no cross-objection filed by the claimants. 9. He submits that even if in a case, the claimants do not file any cross- objection and the Court, in appeal, while considering the appeal, comes to the finding that the compensation was wrongly computed on the lower side, it has power to enhance the compensation and in support of his submission, the learned counsel has cited following rulings:- (i) “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Musst. Kitabjan Bibi andOrs.” [MAC Appeal No. 347/2017, judgment dated 13.10.2025] (ii) “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mulan Hazarika and Ors.”reported in “2013 (5) GLT 461” 10. The learned counsel for the claimants has also submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also granted interest at a lower rate of 6% per annum on the awarded amount. Whereas, as per the various rulings of the Apex Court as well as from this Court, the interest should be awarded at the rate of minimum 9% per annum. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both Page No.# 6/8 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. 12. In the case of “Ranjana Prakash Vs. Divisional Manager” reported in“(2011) 14 SCC 639” the Apex Court has observed as follows: - “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation. If the compensation determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer. Similarly, if the compensation determined by the High Court is lesser than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by the owner/insurer for reduction. The High Court cannot obviously increase the compensation in an appeal by the owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.” 13. From above, it appears that in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company for reducing the quantum of compensation, the High Court cannot enhance the quantum of compensation even if it finds that the compensation paid to the claimants was on lower side. In the instant case, the appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company seeking reduction of the quantum of compensation paid to the claimants and no cross-objection has been filed by the claimants in this case. Hence, this court will not go into the question as to whether the compensation awarded to the claimants is on lower side or not. 14. Let us now examine the contentions raised by the appellant/Insurance Company. In the instant case, it appears that the monthly salary of the deceased was assessed by the tribunal at Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) per month. However, the materials available on record including Exhibit No. 6 i.e., the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased, it appears Page No.# 7/8 that the net salary drawn by the deceased at the time of his death was Rs.11,872/-, therefore, the Tribunal had erred in assessing the monthly salary of the deceased at Rs.10,000/-. Same has to be taken as Rs.11,872/-. 15. Moreover, though the deceased was working in private sector, however, on perusal of the Exhibit No. 6 i.e., the salary certificate, there is no indication that the job in which he was employed was not a permanent job. It appears that the deduction towards provident fund contribution and ESI contribution was also made from his salary, which indicates the permanent nature of the job in which the deceased was employed, though it was in the private sector, hence, this court is in agreement with the tribunal in adding fifty percent of the net salary towards future prospect. 16. However, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the appropriate compensation towards loss of estate would be Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of filial consortium would be Rs.40,000/- each and the compensation towards funeral expenses would be at Rs.15,000/- and not as assessed by the Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the compensation to which the claimants are entitled is assessed as follows:- i. Annual income of the deceased Rs.11,872/- X 12 = Rs.1,42,464/- ii. 50% of the above to be added as future prospectus (Rs.1,42,464/- + Rs.71,232/-)= Rs.2,13,696/- iii. 50% of the above to be deducted as personal expenses of the deceased (2,13,696 – 1,06,848/-) = Rs. 1,06,848/- iv. Multiplying the above multiplicand with multiplier 17 = Rs.18,16,416/- v. Adding Rs.15,000/- against funeral expenses, Rs.15,000/- against loss Page No.# 8/8 of estate and Rs.40,000/- each for both the claimants against loss of filial consortium = Rs.19,26,416/- 18. Thus, it appears that the compensation paid to which the claimants are entitled is found to be more than what has been granted to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award. However, since the claimants have not preferred any appeal, impugning the quantum of compensation awarded to them and since the instant appeal is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company, this appeal is liable to be dismissed in view of observations made by the Apex Court in the case of “Ranjana Prakash and others Vs. Divisional Manager and another” (supra) as discussed in paragraph Nos. 12 and 13 of this judgment herein before. 19. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this appeal is dismissed. 20. Send back the records of the MAC Case No. 362/2011to the concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Abhishek Prem Digitally signed by Abhishek Prem Date: 2026.06.03 11:17:45 +05'30'