Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010123512015
2025:GAU-AS:16872
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./241/2015 SMTI RENU BALA DAS W/O LATE PHANI MEDHI, R/O VILL. UZANPARA, NEAR SRIJANGRAM DEVELOPMENT BLOCK, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783386 VERSUS THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD and 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BONGAIGAON DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHAPAGURI ROAD, NORTH BONGAIGAON, P.O. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783380 2:SMTI BIBHA DEVI W/O SHRI MANOJ SINGH C/O SHRI ASHOK KR. RAY 3RD BYE-LANE TARUN NAGAR DISPUR P.O. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM. 3:MANOJ SINGH S/O LATE RAM BACHAN SINGH 3RD BYE-LANE TARUN NAGAR DISPUR P.O. DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006
Page No.# 2/10 DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K SAHARIA, R MANDAL,MS. N PODDAR,S K PODDAR,MR D C NATH,MR.M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A DUTTA (r-1), MS. C MOZUMDAR (R-1),MS. R D MOZUMDAR (R-1),,MR. S P SHARMA (R-1),
BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND
Advocates for the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Poddar, Advocate Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, Advocate
Date on which judgment is reserved : 09.09.2025
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 08.12.2025
Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? :
Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? :Pronouncement of full judgment.
Page No.# 3/10 JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Heard learned counsel Mr. S.K.Poddar for the appellant and learned counsel Ms. R.D. Mozumdar for the Insurance Company. 2. The appellant Smt Renu Bala Das is the original claimant and the respondent No.1 is the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent No.2 is Smt Bibha Devi, owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-25A/0398 (truck) and the respondent No.3 is Shri Manoj Singh, driver of the aforementioned vehicle. The claimant and the insurance company will be referred to according to their original standing. 3. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation which was erroneously calculated by assessing the monthly income of Rs. 5000/- in spite of the fact that the deceased was a practising Advocate with long-standing experience as a lawyer and also an ex-MLA and social worker of repute. It is contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased to be 62 years at the time of his death, and he had a prospect of leading a healthy life for at least another 13 years with every scope of enhancement of his professional income for an average of Rs.25,000/- per month which was ought to have been calculated as income of a lawyer. It is contended that the deceased was not a tort feasor. The Tribunal has erred by not calculating loss of love and affection. The interest was not calculated from the date of filing of the petition and so on and so forth. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer has laid stress in her argument that no documents were substantiated as to the income of the deceased as an
Page No.# 4/10 Advocate or as an ex-MLA. The court has correctly calculated the income of the deceased without valid documents. Rather, the court has calculated a higher income as according to the norms, the notional income ought to have been Rs.132/- per day for an Advocate. It is submitted that the income, if calculated from the date of filing of the petition, has to be calculated on the basis of the bank rate of interest, i.e. 6.7%. It is further contended that only submission by the appellant that the deceased was an Advocate and ex-MLA and the submission that no objection was raised relating to the income of the deceased or the witnesses were cross-examined refuting the income of the deceased cannot be a ground to assess the income and assess a higher income @ Rs 25,000/- without valid documentary evidence. Rather, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer that when documents were not submitted substantiating the income of the deceased, the respondent will not be on the back foot by cross-examining the witnesses at this point. The respondent has prayed to dismiss the appeal as the appeal is bereft of merits. 5. The genesis of the case was that on 06.06.2005, at about 10:30 am while the deceased was traveling by the vehicle bearing Registration No.MH- 15TR/B782 from Bongaigaon towards Guwahati, with one Shri Lal Mohan Roy, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.AS-25A/0398 (truck) driving the truck in a rash and negligent manner knocked the vehicle No.MH-15TR/B782 on the National Highway under Kamalpur PS. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on his head and he was shifted to the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital but unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries on the same day. This case was filed by the wife of the deceased and notices were issued to the respondents. 6. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submitted their written statements. The
Page No.# 5/10 insurer as respondent No.1 has denied that the accident occurred on 06.06.2005 at 10:30 a.m. owing to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the vehicle No.AS-25A/0398. They have prayed for dismissal of the claim on this ground and on several other grounds. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 through their written statement have denied that the truck was involved in any accident. The respondents have claimed for exoneration as the vehicle was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company and the policy No.321200/2005/6038 was valid at the time of the accident. As the driver was holding a valid driving license, the driver has also prayed for exoneration. 7. To substantiate her claim, the claimant adduced the evidence of two witnesses including herself, and the evidence of the co-passenger, Shri Lal Mohan Roy as PW-2. It has been correctly held by the learned Tribunal that on the touchstone of pre-ponderance of probability, the driver of the truck was responsible for the accident. The truck will hereinafter be referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’. The pleadings and the evidence of PW-1 was substantiated by the evidence of PW-2, who deposed that late Phani Medhi was known to him since his childhood. On 06.06.2005, he was travelling with Phani Medhi in the vehicle bearing Registration No.MH-15TR/B782 (Turbo) of Mahindra and Mahindra Company from Bongaigaon at about 10.35 am. When they reached Chila Karaibari on the National Highway under Kamalpur police station, the driver of the offending vehicle knocked down their vehicle and as a result, Phani Medhi sustained grievous injuries on his head and he (PW-2) also sustained some injuries on his body due to the accident. Phani Medhi was shifted to GMCH immediately, but unfortunately he succumbed to his injuries. 8. Both PW-1 and PW-2 have stated that a Kamalpur PS case No.114/2005 under Section 279/ 338/427 IPC was registered in connection with the case
Page No.# 6/10 against the respondent No.2. PW-1 has exhibited the following Exhibits: AIR (Accident Information Report) as Exhibit-1 Certified copy of the FIR as Exhibit-2 Certified copy of the charge sheet in connection with Kamalpur PS case No.114/2005 as Exhibit- 3, Certified copy of the seizure list in connection with the aforementioned case as Exhibit - 4 and, Certified copy of the P.M report of Phani Medhi as Exhibit-5. 9. After assessing the evidence and scrutinizing the records, it was held by the Tribunal that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,05,000/-. 10. Now the point for determination in this case is whether the income was assessed at a lower rate for a practising advocate with long standing experience of several years and who was also an ex-MLA. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shailaja & Ors –vs- Pavan B. Udupudi & anr. reported in 2025 Supreme (Online) (SC) 291 wherein it has been held that: “5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and by taking into consideration the date of accident was on 11.05.2012, the ceiling limit of the income tax at the relevant point of time was Rs.1,80,000/- the income of the deceased from profession is accordingly taken or in other words we accept the income of the deceased from profession to said extent as he was an advocate with 17 years of standing. Absence of income proof cannot be a ground to deny just and reasonable compensation, particularly when there is no dispute that deceased was having a standing of 17 years at the Bar. The Courts below concurrently has accepted that deceased owned around 3 acres of agricultural land as evident from Ex.P.W-13 and 14
Page No.# 7/10 and yet was not persuaded to construe the income generated from the agricultural operations, for reasons best known. To maintain the said agricultural land and carry on the operations, the claimants have to necessarily expend an amount and Rs.3,000/- per acre and same would be required to be spent for carrying on the agricultural operations or in other words at least a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month will have to be paid towards supervision charges for maintaining 3 acres of agricultural land, necessarily this amount has to be construed as the loss of income to the dependents of the deceased. The supervision charges which claimants will have to spend would be Rs. 10,000/- per month (Rs.1,20,000/- per year). Hence total earning of the deceased comes to Rs.3,00,000/- per year. If we add 10% towards future prospects, the annual income comes to Rs.3,30,000/-, Taking note of the number of dependents, if we deduct 1/4th, the amount would be Rs.2,47,500/- per year. Corresponding to the age of the deceased (51 years), multiplier of 11 would be applicable. Thus, the amount of compensation to which claimants would be entitled towards loss of income would be Rs.27,22,500/-(2,47,500 X 11). If we further add Rs.2,40,000/-towards loss of love and affection and filial compensation and Rs.75,000/- under the head of transportation of dead body and funeral expenses, total amount of compensation to which claimants would be entitled to would be Rs. 30,37,500/-. After deducting the amount of compensation awarded by the High Court ie, Rs.15,76,800/- the enhanced compensation payable would be Rs. 14,60,700/-“,.
The learned counsel for the insurer has submitted that in an earlier decision, it has been held by a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani & ors.vs- National Insurance Company Ltd.& ors reported in 2018 STPL 9049 SC wherein it has been held that:
“13. The Tribunal has found that no evidence regarding the income of the deceased (Satish) was produced by the claimants. That finding has not been
Page No.# 8/10 overturned by the High Court. The High Court, however, relied upon the driving licence of the deceased and training certificate of the deceased issued by Bajaj Auto Ltd. and on that basis, determined the notional income of Satish (deceased) at the time of accident at Rs 10,000 per month. Neither the driving licence nor the certificate could per se be made the basis to assume or infer that the deceased (Satish) was gainfully employed at the relevant time and more so was earning income of Rs 10,000 per month. In other words, the reason assigned by the High Court for enhancing the notional income of the deceased (Satish) from Rs 3000 to Rs 10,000 per month is irrational and tenuous. No tangible logic has been assigned to discard the just finding recorded by the Tribunal in the backdrop of lack of evidence regarding the monthly income of the deceased (Satish).
We are of the view that the High Court has already granted more than just compensation amount to the legal representatives of the deceased (Satish). In that, even if the claim of the appellants regarding future prospects, additional medical expenses and additional interest amount was to be accepted, on the basis of the notional income of Rs 5000 (Rupees five thousand) per month, the question of awarding additional or further compensation amount to the appellants in MFA No. 5874 of 2011 does not arise. The appeal, however, would succeed to the limited extent that the amount of compensation determined by the High Court shall be first paid by Respondent 1 Insurance Company with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle (Respondent 2 herein). We are inclined to allow the appeal to this limited extent, keeping in mind the exposition in Singh Ram v. Nirmala and Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Arn.[(2018) 3 SCC 208.
The amount of Rs.5,000/- has been correctly assessed. The deceased in the case of Rani and others (Supra) was a mechanic, whereas the deceased of this instant case, was an Advocate and an ex-MLA, whose income cannot be
Page No.# 9/10 considered to be at par with the income of a mechanic, who was not shown as a regular mechanic in any office. 14. I find force in the argument of learned counsel for the appellant. 15. Nevertheless , the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant that no documents have been produced in support of the income of the deceased can also be safely brushed aside. In this case, the monthly pension of the deceased was also not produced. The pension papers of the deceased were not exhibited as evidence. In the claim petition, it is mentioned that the monthly income of the deceased, including his pension, was Rs. 25,000/- per month. At the time of the incident, the deceased was 62 years old. His income as an Advocate could not be assessed properly as his long-standing years of practice have not been quantified in the claim petition.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shailaja & Ors (supra) has upheld the apportionment of the income of an Advocate @ of Rs 12,000/- per month. Thereby, this court deems it appropriate to assess the income of the deceased as an ex-MLA and an Advocate of long-standing years of practice @ of Rs. 12,000/- per month. The claimant has indeed not mentioned the particulars of her children or their age and as such, the learned Tribunal has correctly deducted 1/3rd of the annual income of the deceased towards his personnel and living expenses. After deducting 1/3rd of Rs.12,000/- (=Rs.4000/-), the annual income of the deceased is Rs.8000/-x12=Rs.96,000/-
PW-1 has stated that the deceased was 62 years at the time of the accident and thus the multiplier would be 7 in this case as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (Smti) Sarla Verma vs- Delhi
Page No.# 10/10 Transport Corporation & Ors. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 18. The loss of dependency would thus be Rs.96,000/-x7= Rs.6,72,000/- To this, loss of consortium is added Rs.40,000/- Loss of estate of Rs.15,000/- and another sum of Rs. 15,000/- is added as funeral expenses. (National insurance company versus company limited versus Pranay Sethi) 19. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is thereby held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 7,42,000/-. 20. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.08.2015 passed in the MAC Case No. 05/2008 is partly allowed and compensation is enhanced to Rs.7,42,000/-. The insurance company is directed to pay Rs.7,42,000/- @ of 6.7% from the date of filing of the petition. 21. In terms of the above observation, this appeal stands disposed of. 22. Send back the original records to the learned Tribunal. 23. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant