Page No. 1/10 GAHC010002862017 2026:GAU-AS:8060 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./318/2018 1. AY BHANU W/O- LATE KASIMUDDIN @ GOSIM UDDIN 2: SAHITON NESSA D/O- AY BHANU 3: ABU TALEB S/O- AY BHANU 4: AKHINDUL ISLAM (CLAIMANT NO.2 IS DAUGHTER AND CLAIMANT NO.3 AND 4 ARE SONE OF DECEASED AND MINORS AND HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER CLAIMANT NO.1) 5: JAHURA KHATUN W/O- LATE NURUL ISLAM ALL ARE RESIDENT OF. VILL. BOHOTICHAR P.O. & P.S. PANCHARATNA DIST. GOALPARA (ASSAM VERSUS 1. THE REGIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INS CO. LTD, G.S. ROAD ,CHRISTIAN BASTI P.O. GUWAHATI -781005 2. SARBALAL BARMAN S/O- BISTU RAM BARMAN VILL. MILANPUR P.O. MIRZA- 781125 DIST. KAMRUP(ASSAM) Page No. 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the appellant : Mr. A. R. Agarwala, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate Date of Hearing : 10.03.2026 Date of Judgment : 08.06.2026 JUDGMENT 1. Heard Mr. A. R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants/claimants impugning the judgment and award dated 13.06.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 2046/2012. 3. The appellants/claimants are mainly aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded to them by the impugned judgment and award. 4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 22.12.2012 at about 2:00 PM, the deceased, namely, Kasim Uddin@ Ghosi Uddin was traveling in a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing Registration No. AS- 01-CC-2434. The said vehicle was proceeding towards Dobu Agalgre Nowpipara, East Garo Hills, Meghalaya. However, due to rash and negligent driving of the Page No. 3/10 said vehicle by its driver, it collided with a truck carrying coal. As a result of the said accident, said Kasim Uddin@ Ghosi Uddin sustained serious injuries on his person. He was shifted to Rongjeng CHC for treatment. However, he succumbed to his injuries. A police case, namely, Rongjeng P.S. Case No. 22(08)/2012 was also registered under Sections 279/338/304(A) of the IPC in respect of the said accident. 5. The present appellants who are the dependents and legal heirs of the deceased Kasim Uddin approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M) by filing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for death of Kasim Uddin @ Ghosi Uddin in the aforementioned vehicular accident. In the inquiry, the said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 2046/2012. In the said inquiry, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and the inquiry proceeded ex- parte against them. However, the Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. 6. Upon pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues:- “1. Whether victim Late Kasim Uddin @ Gosim Uddin died as a result of the injuries sustained in the alleged road accident dated 22-07- 2012 involving vehicle No. AS-01-CC-2434 (Sumo Victa) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite Page No. 4/10 parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? 7. In support of their claim, the claimants examined two witnesses, namely, the claimant No. 1 herself and one eyewitness, namely, Mortaj Ali as PW-2. They also exhibited several documents as documentary evidence. They also exhibited three documentary exhibits in support of their claim. 8. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined one Mridul Dev Goswami as DW-1 and exhibited one General Diary Entry extracts as Exhibit-A. Ultimately, on completion of the inquiry, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of Rs.11,35,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirty Five Thousand)to the claimants along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing till realization. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal apportioned the award in the manner i.e., 50% to the claimant No. 1, who is the wife of the deceased, 20% of the award to the claimant No. 5, who is the mother of the deceased and remaining 30% of the award to claimant Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 9. Mr. A. R. Agarwala, the learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, while passing the impugned judgment and award, had erred in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- only. Whereas, the categorical stand of the claimants was that he used to earn Rs.8,000/- by doing business and this fact has been duly certified by the Gaonbura by issuing a certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit-3. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that the deceased was engaged in the business of rice and as such same being an unorganized sector, the claimants are not expected to Page No. 5/10 produce documents to prove the monthly income. He submits that going by the state of economy and rising prices of agriculture products at the time when the deceased expired, the monthly income of Rs.8,000/- would have been a reasonable assessment. In support of his submission, he has cited ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “Syed Sadiq Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited” reported in “(2014) 4 SCC 735” wherein the Apex Court has observed that a labour involved in an unorganized sector doing his own business is not expected to produce documents to prove his monthly income and in the said case the Apex Court, considering the fact that the deceased was a vegetable vendor, assessed his monthly income at Rs.6,500/-. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellant has also cited following rulings:- (i) “Dhaneswar Biswal Vs. Divisional Manager and another”, reported in “2025 (1) T.A.C. 80(S.C.). (ii)“Smt. Neeta, W/o Kallappa Kadolkar and Ors. Vs. The Divisional Manager, MSRTC, Kolhapur” reported in “2015 (1) T.A.C. 340 (S.C.)” (ii) “R. Logeshkumar Vs. P. Balasubramaniam and Anr., reported in “2025 INSC 1392” 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has fairly submitted that the compensation computed against the head “loss of estate” and “loss of consortium” as well as against “funeral expenses” is on the higher side and same is required to be computed in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in“(2017) 16 SCC 680”. He also fairly submits that the addition to the income of the deceased against the head future prospect has also to be in Page No. 6/10 accordance with the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court i.e., 40% and not 50% as done by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that applying the aforesaid principles, the compensation granted to the claimants/appellants may be enhanced to Rs.15,06,800/-instead of Rs.11,35,000/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Thirty Five Thousand). 12. On the other hand, Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has opposed the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants for enhancing the compensation granted to the appellants/claimants by the Tribunal. He submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has fairly assessed the monthly income of the deceased even on failure of the part of the claimants to adduce any credible evidence regarding the income of the deceased. He submits that the Gaonbura is not authorized to certify the income of the deceased and even though same was done, the Gaonbura was not examined. He also submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, considering the minimum wages which was granted to an unskilled labor in the year 2012, when the deceased had expired, has correctly assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. He further submits that the addition of 50% towards the income of the deceased as future prospect was also wrong in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). 13. He also submits that the loss of consortium may be calculated at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per dependent, whereas the loss of estate has to be calculated at Rs.15,000/- and the compensation against funeral expenses has also to be calculated at the rate of Rs.15,000/- as held by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He, therefore, submits that by applying the aforesaid principles, if the compensation is calculated, it will come to less than Page No. 7/10 the awarded amount which has already been paid to the claimants and as such he submits that the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 15. In the impugned judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has discarded Exhibit-3 i.e., the income certificate issued by Gaonbura mainly on the ground that the claimants have not been able to adduce the evidence of person who issued the said certificate and, therefore, the said certificate cannot be held to be duly proved. Otherwise also, on perusal of the Exhibit-3, it is not clear as to on what basis or on the basis of what materials the Gaonbura has issued the income certificate of the deceased. A certifying authority before certifying a certain thing must have the knowledge and must ascertain the veracity of the fact which he is certifying in the certificate issued by him. Unless the authority is a statutory authority empowered under some law to issue such certificate, same cannot be relied unless the basis on which the certificate is issued has been stated clearly in the said certificate. 16. However, in the instant case, no such basis of issuance of Exhibit-3 has been mentioned in the said certificate, nor the issuer of the certificate, i.e., the Gaonbura was examined. Hence, this court does not find any wrong in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal not relying on the said certificate. 17. It appears that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in absence of any reliable evidence, took the notional income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. Same Page No. 8/10 appears to be reasonable when we consider the fact that the relevant notification of the Government of Assam, namely, Notification No. GAR 503- 81/394, dated 15th March, 2012 shows that the monthly minimum rates of wages for an unskilled worker at that time was Rs.3,900/-. As such, this court is of considered opinion that the notional income of Rs.4,000/- assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is reasonable and just and same needs no interference by this court. 18. Moreover, the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) has also held that while determining the income in case where the deceased was a self- employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of established income towards future prospects where the deceased was below the age of forty years has been recommended. As such, this court is of view that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in adding 50% towards future prospect to the income of the deceased. 19. Further, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the compensation to be awarded against conventional head of loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses has to be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- (to each dependent) and Rs.15,000/- respectively and not as assessed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 20. Thus, in view of the above observations, if the compensation to which the claimants are entitled is calculated, it comes as follows:- (i) Income of the deceased- Rs.4,000/-X 12= Rs.48,000/-. (ii) Future prospect- 40% of Rs.48,000/- = Rs.19,200/-. (iii) Annual income after addition of future prospect is equal to Rs.48,000/- Page No. 9/10 + Rs.19,200/- = Rs.67,200/-. (iv) Deduction for personal expenses at the rate of 1/4 of the annual income equal to Rs.67,200 – Rs.16,800 = Rs. 50,400/-. (v) Multiplying the aforesaid multiplicand with the multiplier 15(50,400/- X 15)= Rs.7,56,000/-. (vi) To the above amount, the addition of compensation towards loss of spousal consortium and loss of parental consortium for the claimants comes to (Rs.40,000/- X 5) = Rs.2,00,000/- + Rs.7,56,000/-, which comes to Rs.9,56,000/-. (vii) To the aforesaid amount, if we add Rs.15,000/- each against funeral expenses and loss of estate, the total amount comes at Rs.9,86,000/-. 21. Thus, the amount to which the claimants are entitled is found to be Rs.9,86,000/-, which is less than the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal, i.e., Rs.11,35,000/-. 22. Now, the question is whether in an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation awarded to them, if the court finds that the compensation awarded to them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is on a higher side, whether the compensation so awarded can be modified and decreased to what has been found by the appellate court. 23. In this regard, the observation of the Apex Court in the case of “Ranjana Prakash Vs. Divisional Manager” reported in “(2011) 14 SCC 639” are relevant. Same is quoted herein below:- “8. Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate Page No. 10/10 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.” 24. Thus, from above, it appears that in absence of a cross-objection by the Insurance Company, the High Court cannot reduce the compensation given to the claimants in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of the same. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 25. In view of the discussions made and reasons cited in the foregoing paragraphs, this appeal is dismissed. 26. Send back the records of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to it along with a copy of this judgment. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Abhishek Prem Digitally signed by Abhishek Prem Date: 2026.06.09 11:10:16 +05'30'