Page No.# 1/11 GAHC010250012018 2026:GAU-AS:8671 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./986/2018 ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT ORIENTAL HOUSE A-25/27,ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI, 110002, AND REGIONAL OFFICE AT GUWAHATI 7, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL MANAGER VERSUS SMT REKHA MONI PHUKAN AND 4 ORS W/O LATE SUNMONI PHUKAN RESIDENT OF NO. 2, GANDHAKORY GAON(SARUPATHAR) PO CHUKIAPATHAR, PS SARUPATHAR DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM. 2:MASTER UDAYJYOTI PHUKAN SON OF THE DECEASED RESIDENT OF NO. 2 GANDHAKORY GAON(SARUPATHAR) PO CHUKIAPATHAR PS SARUPATHAR DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM. 3:MRS DIPALI PHUKAN MOTHER OF THE DECEASED RESIDENT OF NO. 2 GANDHAKORY GAON(SARUPATHAR) PO CHUKIAPATHAR PS SARUPATHAR DIST GOLAGHAT ASSAM. 4:VICHA KRAHO ANGAMI Page No.# 2/11 S/O THOSE KRAHO ANGAMI R/O AGRI COLONY LOWER NAGALAND KOHIMA 797001 OWNER OF THE OFFENDING SUPER BUS 5:SRI KISHOR YADAV S/O LATE CHOUKOURI YADAV R/O GOLAGHAT ROAD DIMAPUR NAGALAND DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING SUPER BU Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S DUTTA, MS. M CHOUDHURY,MS M GAZLOO,MS S MOCHAHARI Advocate for the Respondent : MS D BORGOHAIN (R-1, 2,3), MS. B PHUKAN (R-1, 2, 3),MS. K BARUAH (R-1,2,3),MR. P GOHAIN (R-1,2,3) BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocates for the appellant : Ms. M. Choudhury Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1,2&3 : Mr. A.K. Gupta and Mr. P. Gohain Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : Full judgment. Whether the full judgment has been pronounced : Yes. Page No.# 3/11 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) This is an appeal under 173 of the MV Act 1988 against the Judgment and Award dated 14.08.2018 passed by the learned MACT No.02 Kamrup(M), Guwahati in MAC Case No. 285/2013 awarding Rs.12,19,864/- with interest at the bank rate for fixed deposits per annum from 23.06.2016 within three months of the judgment. It was also directed that in the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period, the compensation amount shall bear additional interest @ 1% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. M. Choudhury as well as learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Gupta and learned counsel, Mr. P. Gohain for the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3, 3. The facts of the instant case is that the claimants in the MAC Case No. 285/2013 is the wife, son and mother of the deceased who was travelling towards Sarupathar from Dibrugarh Brahmaputra Hospital driving Tata Sumo B/R No.AS-05-B-0397 when a Super Bus vehicle B/R No. NL-01/B-0727 coming from the opposite direction knocked down the Tata Sumo and as a result the driver-cum-owner of the Tata Sumo sustained injuries and died on the spot. 4. The appellant/insurer entered appearance and filed written statement as well as an additional written statement taking the plea that the Tata Sumo which was driven by the deceased in a rash and negligent manner hit the Super Bus and as such the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. It was the further plea of the appellant/insurer that the driver of the Super Bus was only authorized to drive MC, LMV, MGV, and HGV whereas the Super Bus was a passenger carrying vehicle and therefore the PSV Page No.# 4/11 endorsement was mandatory. It was contended that as the DL did not have the required PSV endorsement there is willful violation of the policy conditions and therefore the appellant/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 14.08.2018 fastening the liability on the appellant. 6. Being aggrieved with the impugned Judgment and award, the appellant has come before this Court on the ground that the learned Tribunal illegally held the appellant liable amongst other grounds. 7. The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that the driver who drove the Super Bus passenger vehicle at the time of the accident had no valid and effective driving license as it was without PSV endorsement and as such there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Another ground is that the Tribunal has arbitrarily accepted the income of the deceased as Rs 6500/- per month without any evidence as regards occupation or monthly income. Another ground taken by the appellant is that the Tribunal wrongly calculated the future prospect of the deceased as 40% inasmuch as the claimant had failed to prove the established income of her deceased husband at the time of the accident. When there is no evidence with regard to income it is settled law that notional income of Rs.3000/- has to be taken. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal had misinterpreted the principle of law in Mukund Dewangan Vrs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, (2017) 14 SCC 663 as in the aforementioned case the Supreme court had only held that a driver holding a valid license to drive a LMV does not require a separate endorsement to drive a Page No.# 5/11 transport vehicle that is classified as an LMV and that the absence of such endorsement does not invalidate the driver’s license or exonerate the insurance company from liability. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the facts are entirely different in the instant case and no liability could have been imposed upon the appellant as the Super Bus was above the weight of 7500 kg and it was a passenger vehicle and the appellant should have been exonerated of its liability to pay compensation and in fact no award could have been passed against the appellant. 9. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant is not liable to indemnify the insured. It is prayed that the monthly income should also be taken as Rs.3900/- per month basing on the Minimum Wages Notification of the Government of Assam for 2012 as the income was not proved and occupation was not proved. Learned counsel further submits that since the income is not established the learned tribunal should not have added the future prospect, however, the tribunal has added 40% towards future prospects. Nevertheless, taking into account the involvement of a third party, an opportunity should be given to the appellant to pay and recover from the owner/insured. Learned counsel accordingly, prays that the impugned Judgment and award may be duly modified by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of:- i) Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 ii) Syed Basheer Ahamad and Ors Vs. Mohd. Jameel and Anr, (2009) 2 SCC 225 iii) Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan and Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224 iv) Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2019 in The Oriental Insurance Company Page No.# 6/11 Limited Vs.Smti. Champabati Ray and 5 Ors. v) Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Prem Devi Bothra, 2024 Supreme (Gau) 493 vi) Order dated 06.02.2020, in MACApp./565/2019 vii) Judgment and Order dated 02.03.2023 in MACApp./989/2018 viii) Judgment dated 05.12.2024 in MACApp./132/2020 ix) Judgment dated 07.03.2022 in MACApp./33/2017. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant/ respondent has submitted that neither the factum of the accident nor the death of the deceased in the accident is disputed by the appellants. Learned counsel submits that the deceased was a driver and he used to drive his own Tata Sumo vehicle for hire purposes. It is stated that the driving license of the deceased was exhibited as Exhibit-6 and the registration certificate of the Tata Sumo in the name of the deceased is Exhibit-8. He has submitted that the driving license of the driver of the offending super bus also shows that the driver was authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle (HGV). He submits that the super bus can also come under the category of heavy goods vehicle and therefore, the endorsement of PSV Passenger vehicle is not mandatory in the present case. Regarding the income of the deceased, the learned counsel submits that the driving license and the registration certificate of the Tata sumo have been exhibited during the trial. The claimant No.1/wife of the deceased also proved the income certificate as exhibit-7 wherein the Government Goan Bura of the deceased’s village certified that the deceased was earning Rs.8000/- per month. However, the tribunal had held the monthly income as Rs.6500/- per month which is just as proper as even going by the minimum wages in the year 2012, the monthly income of a Page No.# 7/11 skilled person in private transport can be calculated as Rs.6240/- per month. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent relies on the case of Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, AIR 2021 Supreme Court 353, wherein the Supreme Court held that even if the claimants are unable to produce any documents to prove the income of the deceased nor could they establish his employment as a teacher that does not justify adoption of the lowest tier of minimum wage while computing his income. From the statement of witnesses and documentary records and circumstances of the accident, it was apparent that the deceased was comparatively more educationally qualified and skilled. Further, he maintained a reasonable standard of living for his family as evidenced by his use of a motor cycle for commuting. Thus, at the very least, the minimum wage as applicable to skilled workers in the state of Haryana during 2014 ought to have been applied. As preserving the existing standard of living of a deceased’s family is a fundamental endeavor of motor accident compensation law. Similarly, in the instant case learned counsel submits that the entire documents on record shows that the deceased was using his own tata sumo vehicle for hire which he used to drive himself and therefore, it is only proper that the tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.6500/-. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent therefore submits that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality and prays that the instant appeal may be dismissed as having no merit. 11. This Court has considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the Trial Court Records. The principle of law laid down in Mukund Dewangan (Supra), is that a driver holding a valid license to drive a light motor vehicle (LMV) does not require a separate endorsement to drive a transport vehicle that is clarified as an LMV and the Page No.# 8/11 absence of such endorsement does not invalidate the driver’s license or exonerate the insurance company from liability. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that the learned Tribunal could not have relied on the case of Mukund Dewangan to arrive at a finding that the instant case is covered by the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the offending vehicle was a super bus, meaning, it was a heavy passenger vehicle and a transport vehicle license was required. In the case of M/S Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rambha Devi and Others, Civil Appeal No.841/2018, reported in 2024 INSC 840, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the question as to whether a person holding a LMV License can lawfully drive a transport vehicle whose gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 Kg. the Supreme Court affirmed that such a LMV License is sufficient and no separate transport endorsement is required for that class of vehicle. In other words a driver holding a LMV license can legally drive a transport vehicle weighing up to 7500 Kg without any additional endorsement or separate license for transport vehicles. However, the implications for vehicles exceeding 7500 Kg gross weight based on the M/S Bajaj Alliance Vrs. Rambha Devi case would mean that a separate transport vehicle license is mandatory. In the instant case, the offending super bus falls in the category of the earlier Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle/HPMV. After the 1994 amendment to the MV Act the old class wise endorsements such as HPMV or HPV/PSV have largely been replaced by the broader category “Transport Vehicle/TRANS. The license now generally specifies the class of vehicle and whether it’s a transport vehicle. For a super bus vehicle above 7500 kg a separate transport endorsement remains mandatory. Evidently, the driving license of the driver of the super bus did not have the transport vehicle endorsement. This Court is therefore, of the view that Page No.# 9/11 the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), is relevant only with regard to vehicles with less than 7500 Kg gross weight. This Court therefore, holds that the learned tribunal could not have fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the appellants as there was a clear violation of policy conditions. 12. With regard to the monthly income this Court is of the view that the claimant/respondents were able to prove on the touchstone of preponderance of probability that the deceased was maintaining a reasonable standard of living for his family as can be seen by his use of a Tata Sumo for hire purposes and also the income certificate issued by the Village Gaon Bura. Thus, the amount of Rs.6500/- as monthly income is just and proper. In the case of National Insurance company limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the Supreme Court held that when the deceased was self-employed or, on a fixed salary an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. Since the deceased in the present case was 35 years old, the tribunal has rightly added 40% towards future prospect. Therefore, the calculations made by the learned tribunal under various heads is upheld and not interfered with. 13. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount of the compensation before the Tribunal within 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The appellant insurance company shall be at liberty to recover the awarded amount from the owner/insured in due course. Before releasing the awarded amount, the learned tribunal shall issue a notice to the insured owner of the vehicle/super bus, who shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount that the insurer will pay to the claimant, in accordance with the law laid down in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Shri Nanjappan and Page No.# 10/11 Others, (2004) 13 SCC 224. The offending vehicle shall be attached as part of the security. If necessary, the executing court shall take assistance from the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The executing court shall also pass appropriate orders in accordance with law regarding the manner in which the insured owner of the vehicle shall made payment to the insurance company. 15. It is observed that the learned Tribunal had also directed for an additional interest at 1% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition in the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period. This condition is set aside. It is also directed that there shall be no interest on the future prospects. The payment of interest on the compensation amount with effect from 23.06.2016 is not interfered with. 16. It is submitted by the parties that 50% of the awarded amount has already been deposited by the appellant in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 17.12.2018 passed in I.A(C)./4117/2018. The said amount has further been withdrawn by the claimant/respondents in view of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in I.A(C)./617/2019. Therefore, the claimant/respondents have already received an amount of Rs.6,09,932/-(Rupees six lakh nine thousand nine hundred thirty-two). The balance amount of the compensation shall be deposited by the appellants/Oriental Insurance Company before the Tribunal as directed above in accordance with the instructions of the Tribunal. 17. The Registry shall refund the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- to the appellant. 18. Consequently, the appeal is disposed of with the above modifications and directions. 19. Registry to return back the trial court records expeditiously. Page No.# 11/11 JUDGE Comparing Assistant