Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010071132019 2026:GAU-AS:8825 In the Gauhati High Court (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) MAC.APPL./153/2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. having its registered office at Middleton Street, Kolkatta and one of the Regional Offices known as Guwahati Regional Office, at G.S. Road, Bhangagarh, Guwahati-5, Assam. …… ..Appellant -Versus- 1. Sri Susen Gogoi, Son of Late Dilip Gogoi, Represented by Mr. Lalit Gogoi, S/o Suneswar Gogoi Resident of village-Sotai Ghorpholia Gaon P.S-Teok, District-Jorhat, Assam. Pin-785112 …………Respondent/Claimant 2.Mrs. Bonti Buragohain, W/o Bishnu Prasad Buragohain Village-Melang Gayan Gaon, P.S and District-Jorhat (Assam) Pin-785221 …………..Respondent/Owner 3.Sri Satyajit Buragohain, S/o Bishnu Prasad Buragohain Village-Melang Gayan Gaon, P.S and District-Jorhat (Assam) Pin-785221 …………..Respondent/Driver Page No.# 2/9 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocate for the appellant : Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel. Advocate for the respondents : Mr. Y.S. Mannan and Ms. K. K. Choudhury, learned counsel. Date on which Judgment is reserved : 16.06.2026 Date of Hearing : 16.06.2026 Date of Judgment and Order : 19.06.2026. Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the Judgment? : No. Whether the full Judgment has been pronounced? : Yes. JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. R.K. Bhatra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mrs. K.K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/ National Insurance Company Limited assailing the Judgment and Award dated 18.04.2018 passed by the MACT, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in MAC Case No. 1888/2015 directing the appellants to pay the award to the claimants within 3 (three) months from the date of Judgment together with interest as indicated therein. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal ignored the specific defence set forth by the Insurer by examining one defence Page No.# 3/9 witness, who was the investigator of the company. The defence witness deposed that the deceased had suddenly appeared in between the trucks while trying to cross the road and thereby the accident occurred due to the fault of the deceased. The appellant also stated that during the investigation the Voter ID card of the deceased was discovered wherein it was reflected that the age of the deceased as on 11.10.2013 was 49 years, and as such on the date of the accident i.e. 30.01.2015 the deceased was more than 50 years of age and as such the Tribunal should have taken the age group as 51 to 55 and applied the multiplier of 11 and further an addition of 10% towards future prospects as per the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. –Vs- Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. 4. Another ground taken by the appellant herein is that the Tribunal came to a finding that the deceased had left behind only one dependent and as such the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased but should have deducted 50%. 5. Further the appellant has also taken the ground that the Tribunal had made an error by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- (Rupees seven thousand) only per month since the claimant in the claim petition had stated that the deceased was a businessman and the Tribunal held that the deceased was a farmer and the P.W.1 deposed that the deceased was working as a cook in his dhaba. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant therefore, prays that the age of the deceased should be taken as more than 50 years, and the Tribunal could not have added 25% towards future prospects and also could not have deducted Page No.# 4/9 only 1/3rd towards the personal expenses when there was only one dependent. It is therefore prayed that the impugned Judgment and award may be suitably modified/reduced by this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Judgment of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court dated 14.09.2022 passed in MACApp.698/2022, wherein the Court has specifically held that basing on the Sarla Verma and Ors. –Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. reported in 2009 (6) SCC 121 case the deduction towards personal expenses should be 1/3rd where the dependent family members is 2 to 3, but if the deceased is survived by the parents and sibling only the mother would be considered as the dependent. In the aforementioned case the claimant being the only dependent the Court held that the deduction should be 50% towards personal and living expenses taking into account the fact that the claimant was only dependent. Similarly in the present case the claimant is the one and only dependent and therefore the Tribunal should have taken 50% deduction towards personal expenses. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying on the case of Dharam Pal and Ors. Vs U.P. State Road Transport Corporation reported in 2008 (12) SCC 208 submits that the rate of interest on the compensation amount should also be held to be 7.5% from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of payment. 9. Per-contra the learned counsel for the claimant respondents submits that the Voter ID card which is produced by the appellants was never proved before the Tribunal. Only by filing the application under Order 41 Rule 27 in I.A (Civil)/993/2020 the appellant has come before this Court praying for production of additional evidence in the form of the Voter ID of the deceased. Learned Page No.# 5/9 counsel submits that such application cannot be allowed by this Court as before the Tribunal the age of the deceased was proved by producing the school transfer certificate which was exhibited as Ext.5. The Post Mortem Report which was exhibit 2 (B) also showed the age of the deceased as 47 years. In the Form 54 also the age of the deceased is entered as 47 years. Accordingly, the Tribunal correctly came to a finding that the age of the deceased was proved as 47 years. In the light of such cogent evidence produced by the claimant before the Tribunal to prove the age of the deceased, the appellants at this belated stage cannot be allowed to produce the Voter ID of the deceased as proof of age and the I.A (Civil)/993/2020 should not be allowed by this Court. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No.1 submits that as the age of the deceased has been duly proved by the claimant as 47 years, the percentage of future prospect shall remain as 25%. 11. The learned counsel for the claimant/respondent No. 1 also submits that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only as loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- as funeral expenses. However, under the conventional head of loss of estate the Tribunal has not awarded any amount whereas as per Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant should have also been awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate. The learned counsel therefore prays that the Judgment and award dated 18.04.2018 may be modified accordingly, however this Court may not interfere with the calculation of the Tribunal with regard to the income, future prospect, multiplier but the claimant/respondent also does not deny that the claimant is the sole dependent of the deceased. 12. I have given due consideration to the submissions made by the learned Page No.# 6/9 counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the Trial Court Records. 13. As far as the determination of age is concerned, this Court is of the view that the claimant has been able to prove the age of the deceased as 47 years on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities inasmuch as the school transfer certificate, the post-mortem report and the Form 54 shows the age of the deceased as 47 years. This Court has dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC in I/A (Civil)/993/2020 and therefore the Voter ID sought to be produced by the appellant as additional evidence has been denied. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the multiplier as 13 and has also rightly added 25% as the future prospect. As far as the proof of income is concerned, the P.W.1 had deposed that at the time of death the deceased was working as a cook in the Sumu dhaba and that his monthly income was Rs.7,000/-. The claimant also exhibited the Income certificate of the deceased as Ext.4 (A), which was duly proved by the P.W.1/owner of the Sumu dhaba. 14. This Court has also noted the fact that the claimant is the sole dependent of the deceased and in such a case the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MACApp. 698/2022 has already held that the deduction towards personal expenses should be 50%. The deduction from the income is therefore calculated as 50%. 15. In the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the Supreme Court has fixed the amounts under the three conventional heads of compensation in Motor Accident cases as – i) loss of estate— Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, ii) loss of consortium— Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only iii) funeral expenses — Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only. Therefore, in the instant case Page No.# 7/9 also the amount of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only towards loss of estate has to be added to the compensation amount. 16. In view of the observations and discussions herein above, the compensation is re-calculated as below:- Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1. Income Rs.7,000/- p.m 2. Future Prospects (25%) Rs.8,750/- p.m (Rs.7,000+Rs.1,750) 3. Deduction (50% since one dependent) Rs.4,375/- (Rs.8,750/2) 4. Multiplier (“13” since age is 47 yrs) Rs.4,375/- X 12 X13 = Rs.6,82,500/-. 5. Loss of parental Consortium Rs.40,000/- 6. Funeral Expenses Rs.15,000/- 7. Loss of Estate Rs.15,000/- 8. Total compensation Rs.7,52,500/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty-two thousand five hundred) only Page No.# 8/9 17. By an order dated 01.03.2021 in I.A.(civil)/398/2021, this Court had allowed the claimant respondent to withdraw a sum of Rs.4, 85, 552/- (Rupees four lakhs eighty-five thousand five hundred fifty-two) only and the same has been withdrawn by the claimant. 18. Accordingly, the National Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount of the compensation amounting to Rs.2,66,948/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty-six thousand nine hundred forty eight) only before the learned Tribunal within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of this Judgment. It is further directed that the compensation amount shall carry an interest @7.5% from the date of the Judgment i.e 18.04.2018 till full payment is made. The condition in the impugned Judgment that the compensation amount shall bear additional interest at 1% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in the event of failure to make the payment within the stipulated period is set aside. It is further clarified that the interest accrued in the fixed deposits (FDs) opened in the name of the claimant, Sri Susen Gogoi will be unaffected by this Judgment as the interest in the fixed deposits (FDs) will be governed by the concerned bank fixed deposits (FDs) interest rates. The interest of 7.5% indicated in the instant Judgment pertains only to the remaining part of the compensation. 19. Consequently the appeal is disposed of with the above modifications and directions. Page No.# 9/9 20. Registry is directed to send back the Trial Court Records forthwith and also allow the appellant to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only. JUDGE Comparing Assistant