Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010245892022 2026:GAU-AS:8295 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./863/2022 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING COMPANY, REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI- 600014 WITH ONE OF ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT CHIBBER HOUSE, 2ND FLLOR, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 5, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, GUWAHATI, ASSAM. VERSUS MD. LALMIYAN AND ORS. S/O LATE NIMOT ALI, VILL.- BHURABANDA, P.O. AND P.S.- RUPAHIHAT, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782125. 2:KHUDEJA BEGUM W/O MD. LALMIYAN VILL.- BHURABANDA P.O. AND P.S.- RUPAHIHAT DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782125. 3:MASUDA BEGUM W/O LATE NUR ISLAM @ NURAUL ISLAM VILL.- BHURABANDA P.O. AND P.S.- RUPAHIHAT DIST.- NAGAON Page No.# 2/7 ASSAM PIN- 782125. 4:DIPAK BARUAH S/O LATE MINA RAM BARUAH VILL.- BAGHAR CHUBURI P.O. AND P.S.- TAZPUR DIST.- SONITPUR ASSAM PIN- 784001. 5:NAYAN JYOTI BORA S/O RATUL CH. BORA VILL.- AUNIALI P.O.- PURANIGUDAM P.S.- NAGAON SADAR DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782141 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C PAUL, Advocate for the Respondent : K U AHMED, MS P SARMA,MS N HASAN BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER JUDGMENT Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Page No.# 3/7 11.06.2026 1. Heard Mr. R. C. Paul, leaned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K. U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This application has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited against the impugned judgment and award dated 31/8/2022 in MAC Case No. 62 of 2019 passed by the learned MACT, Nagaon awarding an amount of Rs.16,22,000/- against the appellant directed to be paid along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization and further directed the applicant company to deposit the cost of proceeding amounting of Rs.5,000 to be deposited to the District Legal Service Authority, Nagaon within 30 days. 3. The pleaded case of the claimant before the tribunal was that on 26/11/2018 the deceased, namely, Nur Islam and deceased Majaharul Islam were coming from Bhujkhowa side towards Sullung side by riding a bicycle over NH 37 and on the way they noticed that a mini truck was coming from the opposite direction and the Alto car was trying to overtake the truck which was going ahead. And looking at this situation, the cyclist /deceased stopped the bicycle in the extreme left side of the bridge but the Alto registration number AS-12-M-6063 hit them directly in rash and negligent manner whereby, both the cyclists succumbed to their injuries, one died at the spot and another on the way to hospital. The claimants pleaded that the accident took place purely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Alto vehicle. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that subsequently, during investigation the appellants came to know that the deceased persons were Page No.# 4/7 riding a motorcycle and not a bicycle and that the accident took place due to head on collision between the motor cycle and the Alto car. It is further submitted that as per charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency which is exhibited as Exhibit-3, the accident occurred due to head on collision between the motorcycle with registration No. AS-12/R-5752 and Alto vehicle with registration No. AS-12/M-6063. 5. The DW-2 SI, David Daimari had disposed that as per the investigation and the charge sheet, two vehicles were seized in connection with the case during investigation. One motorcycle No. AS-12/R-5752 and the other Alto No. AS-12/M-6063 were seized by the police. After investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet mentioning that the accident took place between a motorcycle and an Alto vehicle for which both the vehicles were seized. 6. In his examination-in-chief DW-2 stated that no bicycle was seized in connection with the accident and that the two deceased persons were on the motorcycle at the time of the accident. On being cross-examined, the DW-2 reaffirmed that during the investigation they did not find any bicycle on the spot. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the motor vehicle Inspector was also examined as DW-3. In his examination-in-chief, the DW-3 categorically stated that he had inspected the motorcycle as well as the Alto vehicle. So, when he inspected the motorcycle, he did not find the name of the driver of the motorcycle, pollution control certificate, road tax paid, etc. and the front mudguard was broken, headlight broken, handlebar bend, rear mudguard broken and tail lamp broken and damaged due to the accident. He did not find any damage on the Alto vehicle. Page No.# 5/7 8. In his cross-examination DW-3 deposed that he had inspected the Alto vehicle on 29/11/2018 and the motorcycle on 29/12/2018. He also proved the MVI report of the motorcycle as Exhibit- E. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of this Court to the observations made by the learned Tribunal. In the impugned judgment dated 31/8/2022 in MAC Case No.62 of 2019, the learned Tribunal while analyzing the evidence regarding whether the vehicle involved was a bicycle or motorcycle had come to a finding that in the instant case it appears to be a case of clerical error while writing the charge sheet. And that the police officer/DW-2 had admitted that investigation was conducted by his subordinate officer and that he merely wrote the charge-sheet and submitted it to the Court. And therefore, the learned tribunal did not take into consideration the charge- sheet nor the evidence adduced by the DW-1, 2, and 3. 10. He further stated that the DW-1 had deposed that he had collected the MVI report of both the vehicles and exhibited Exhibit-E as the MVI report of motorcycle and Exhibit-F as the MVI report of Alto car. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the exhibit-E which is the MVI report of the motorcycle is not available in the TCR. He further submits that the DW-1 had also deposed that he had collected the seizure list of both the vehicles and exhibited the seizure list of the motorcycle as Exhibit-C and seizure list of Alto car as Exhibit-D. However, the said Exhibit-C is also not available in the TCR. 12. In view of the above submission the learned counsel submits that the impugned judgment and award may be set aside and the instant case may be remanded back to the tribunal for fresh adjudication. Page No.# 6/7 13. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondents submits that there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award dated 21/8/2022 and therefore, prays that the same may be upheld by this court. 14. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as trial Court record. 15. This Court is of the view that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and further, the strict principle of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable and the claimant has to simply prove the facts on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. However, this does not mean that the tribunal should ignore all relevant materials which have been brought on record. If the tribunal fails to consider relevant evidence including the police documents and the charge sheet showing the involvement of another vehicle, this Court can certainly interfere in the impugned judgment and award. 16. The tribunal has to take a holistic view of all the evidence available before it including the charge-sheet. It is the view of this Court that the Tribunal has simply brushed aside the evidence of the DW-1, 2, and 3. In fact, the seizure list of the motorcycle/exhibit-C and the MVI report of the motorcycle/exhibit-E is not even found in the trial court records. 17. The learned tribunal could not have merely brushed aside these relevant factors by stating that it is a case of mere clerical error while writing the charge- sheet. It is the opinion of this Court that the tribunal has disregarded crucial evidence and accordingly, there has been failure to appreciate the evidence in the right perspective by the tribunal. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, the impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside and the case is remanded back to Page No.# 7/7 the learner tribunal for fresh adjudication by framing an additional issue, i.e., “whether the deceased was travelling on a bicycle or a motorcycle B/R No- AS- 12/R-5752 and whether he was driving the said motorcycle?”. 19. The appellant/insurer shall be allowed to produce the original copies of the MVI report as well as the seizure list of the motorcycle and other additional documents. 20. The Registry is directed to send back the trial court records forthwith. 21. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 20.08.2026. 22. The claimant is also given the opportunity to cross-examine the DWs with regard to the MVI report and the seizure list and also other documents which may be produced by the appellant/insurer. 23. Registry shall release the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant herein. 24. 50% of the amount deposited before this Registry shall be subject to the outcome of the retrial. 25. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of with the above directions. 26. Registry shall send back the TCR along with a copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant