Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010227892022 2026:GAU-AS:8292 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./789/2022 MOKSHED ALI @ MOSHED ALI PARAMANIK S/O LATE HOSEN ALI, VILL.- AMBARI KADOTIKA, P.O.- BALAR BHITA, P.O.- BAGUAN, DIST.- GOALPARA, PIN- 783129. VERSUS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 5 ORS. RADHIKA BHABAN, G.S. ROAD, GANESHGURI, P.O.- GANESHGURI, GUWAHATI- 781005. 2:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BONGAIGAON DIVISION P.O.- BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783382. 3:THE ASSAM BULK CARRIER C/O SARDAR KARNAIL SHING CHITRALEKHA PATH RUKMINIGAON DISPUR H. NO. 14 GUWAHATI- 6 Page No.# 2/8 PIN- 781006. 4:JADU MONI SAIKIA S/O GANGA SAIKIA VILL.- MORNOI BEBEJIA P.O.- DHAKUA KHANA DIST.- LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787055. 5:THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BONGAIGAON DIVISION P.O.- BONGAIGAON DIST.- BONGAIGAON PIN- 783382. INSURED AT REGIONAL OFFICE OF NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. G.S. ROAD ULUBARI GUWAHATI PIN- 781007. 6:MORZINA BEGUM W/O LATE JOYNAL ABDIN SHEIKH VILL.- AMBARI P.O.- AMBARI BAZAR DIST.- GOALPARA PIN- 783129 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T BEGUM, MR. A ROSHID Advocate for the Respondent : MS. M CHOUDHURY (r-5), MS F INTAZ (R-6),MS. A BEGUM (R- 6),MR M H CHOUDHURY (R-6),MR. M A SHEIKH (R-6),MR. K K BHATTA (R1, R2),MS C BORAH (r-5) Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER ORDER 11/06/2026 The instant appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act has been preferred by the father of the deceased Mokshed Ali @ Mokshed Ali Paramanik. 2. The appellant herein has assailed the impugned Judgment and order dated 24.08.2022 passed in MAC Case No. 203/2016 by the MACT, Goalpara whereby an amount of Rs.9,61,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant. 3. Heard Mr. A. Roshid, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard, Mr. K.K. Bhatta, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Ms. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 4. The case of the appellant herein is that the appellant and the respondent No.6 had filed a claim petition before the MACT, Goalpara, for the death of the appellant’s son in a motor accident on 09.06.2016. The deceased was the husband of the respondent No.6. The appellant and the respondent No.6 filed the claim petition as claimant No.1 and claimant No.2 respectively before the learned Tribunal. The other respondents also received notice and filed the written statements and contested the claim petition. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the Judgment dated 24.08.2022 in MAC Case No. 203/2016, thereby awarding an amount of Rs.9,61,000/- with 7% interest P.A. from the date of filing the amended claim petition. Page No.# 4/8 5. The appellant herein has preferred the present appeal on the ground that the learned Tribunal has illegally held the notional income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month. The deceased had obtained M.Phil degree and he was working as a lecturer in West Goalpara Collage. The deceased was also giving home tuitions and his earning was about Rs.25,000/- per month but the Tribunal illegally passed the impugned judgment and award by holding that the notional income of the deceased was Rs.6,000/- per month. 6. The appellant has also contended that the learned Tribunal had divided the awarded amount of Rs.9,61,000/- in between the 2 (two) claimants i.e, the appellant and the respondent No.6 as follows, Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to be kept as fixed deposit in favor of the respondent No.6 and Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousands)to be kept as fixed deposit in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal also directed that the remaining amount of Rs.4,11,000/- is to be given to the respondent No.6/wife of the deceased. The contention of the appellant herein is that the appellant and the respondent No.6 are entitled to get equal share as the appellant is about 75 years old without any source of income and he needs more financial support for his medications and daily essential commodities. 7. The appellant herein therefore prays that the judgment and award dated 24.08.2022 passed in MAC Case No.206/2016 should be modified by granting equal share of the awarded amount to the appellant and the respondent No.6 and to enhance the award holding the income of the deceased as Rs.25,000/- per month. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2/ Insurer, Mr. K.K. Bhatta submits that the insurer has nothing to submit regarding the distribution of the Page No.# 5/8 awarded amount. However, he has stated that the claimant could not produce any proof of income nor any proof of age before the learned Tribunal. In the claim petition, the claimants had stated that the deceased was earning a monthly salary of Rs.7,000/- per month from the West Goalpara Collage and that he earned Rs.18,000/- from private tuitions per month. However, the claimants could not produce any salary certificate or any proof regarding the income during the course of the trial before the Tribunal. Therefore the Tribunal had rightly held the income as Rs.6000/- per month. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurer/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 further submits that the appellant has contended that the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident. However, during the trial no proof of age was produced by the claimant appellant. Therefore, in this regard also, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 41 to 45 years and as per Sarla Verma’s Case the correct multiplier of 14 has been applied by the Tribunal basing on the post mortem report. Therefore, the learned counsel for the insurer submits that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the amount of compensation and it is prayed that this Court may not interfere with the same. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.6, Mr. M.H. Choudhury has also adopted the submission made by the learned counsel for the insurer/respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and further submits that the wife has been rightly granted the bigger share of the awarded amount in as much as she was fully dependent on her husband/ the deceased. 11. This Court has considered the submission of the counsel for the parties and has perused the records placed before the Court. The factum of accident as well as the demise of the deceased person Joynal Abdin Sheikh in a motor vehicle Page No.# 6/8 accident on 09.06.2016 is not disputed by any of the parties. It is also not disputed that the vehicle bearing registration No. AS-01FC-3185(Gas Tanker- Truck) was the offending vehicle. 12. This Court has perused the Judgment and Award dated 24.08.2022 passed in MAC Case No.203/2016 in detail. The perusal of the said judgment indicates that no age proof or income proof was produced by the claim during the trial. The PW1/Appellant was examined by the Tribunal and during his cross- examination he stated that he was not an eye witness to the accident and he did not submit any age proof and income proof of his son. The PW2/Respondent No.6 was also examined by the tribunal and she deposed that the deceased was aged about 40 years and he was a college lecturer by profession and used to earn about Rs.25,000/- from all sources per month. However, during her cross examination PW2/Respondent No.6 also stated that she has not submitted any document to prove the age and income of her deceased husband. In the light of such fact and circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held that the age of the deceased would be within the age of 41 to 45 years as the post mortem report also disclosed the age of the deceased as 41 years. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that the proper multiplier of 14 has been applied by the Tribunal as per the guidelines of the Sarla Veram’s case since, the age of the deceased would have been within the age group of 41 to 45 years basing on the P.M Report. 13. Regarding the income of the deceased, the PW1 and PW2 both stated that the deceased was earning Rs.7000/- per month as college lecturer and in the claim petition also it is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.7000/- per month from the West Goalpara College and Rs.18,000/- from private tuitions per Page No.# 7/8 month. However, there was no salary certificate nor any person was examined by the claimants in order to prove the income of the deceased. The Tribunal therefore had taken into account the concept of notional income for the purpose of accessing the amount of compensation and has considered the present day price index of essential articles and held Rs.6000/- per month as the notional income of the deceased. This Court does not find any perversity in this finding of the Tribunal also as the claimants could not produce any certificate nor any person to prove the income as claimed by them. 14. As far as the distribution of the awarded amount is concerned, this Court is of the view that the wife of the deceased who was fully dependent on the deceased during his life time is entitled to 75% of the award and the father of the deceased/Appellant would be entitled to 25% of the awarded amount. 15. Accordingly, the distribution of the award is modified to the extent that from the balance amount of Rs.4,11,000/-, 75% shall be given to the respondent No.6 and 25% shall be given to the appellant herein. Learned counsel for the parties submits that the awarded amount has not been deposited till date. Accordingly, the respondent Nos. 1&2 herein/United India Insurance Company Limited shall deposit the awarded amount before the learned Tribunal, if not deposited within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today and thereafter, the amount shall be distributed among the appellant and the respondent No.6 as indicated herein above. The allocation of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs fifty thousand is not interfered with. 16. With the above directions, it is further clarified that the amount of compensation of Rs.9,61,000/- shall be deposited along with interest at 7% P.A. from the date of filing of the amended claim petition as directed by the learned Page No.# 8/8 Tribunal. 17. The Registry shall return the Trial Court Record forthwith. The appeal is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant