MAC Case No.

1013 of 2014

-1-

BEFORE THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL NO.2,

KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI
Present : Naim Uddin Ahmed, AJS
MEMBER, M.A.C.T. No.2,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati

MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

1. Smt. Nireswari Moran

2. Miss Ila Moran
3. Sri Dhanti Moran
4. Sri Deepjyoti Moran Claimants
-Versus-
1. Sri Srimanta Baruah
2. Sri Babul Saikia
3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Opposite Parties
NAME OF THE ADVOCATES WHO APPEARED IN THIS CASE

1. For the claimants : 1. Dr. Utpaljeet Baruah

: 2. Smt. R. R. Sarmah Baruah
: 3. Sri Utpal Barman
: 4. Sri Tutul Kakati
2. For the O.P. No.3 : 1. Mr. Ramjan Ali
DATES OF THE CASE
1. Claim petition filed on : 30-05-2014
2. Evidence on affidavit submitted on : 19-08-2015
3. Cross-examination recorded on : 19-08-2015
: 10-03-2017
4. Evidence on affidavit D.Ws. submitted on : 19-03-2018
5. Cross-examination recorded on : 31-05-2018
: 13-08-2018

Page No.1 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-2-

6. Arguments heard on : 22-03-2022

7. Judgment delivered on : 02-04-2022
JUDGMENT
1. The instant Motor Accident Claim case is arisen out of a
claim petition filed by the claimants, u/s 166 of the M.V. Act. 1988,
seeking compensation for the death of the victim, namely Lt.
Padeswar Moran in a motor vehicular accident occurred on 14-04-
2014 at about 01:00 P.M. at Bordubi near Nagajan Tamulikhuti, in
the district of Tinsukia under Bordubi Police Station.
2. The brief fact of the case is that deceased namely,
Padeswar Moran, who was an employee of Oil India Limited,
Diliajan was travelling on a Scooty bearing registration No.AS-23-J-
0338 from his office towards his residence. When he reached
Bordubi near Nagajan Tamulikhat, one Tata Indica bearing
registration No.AS-01-BE-3306 being driven by its driver in a very
rash and negligent manner dashed the Scooty from the back side,
as a result of which the victim (rider of the Scooty) sustained
grievous injuries on his person. Immediately after the accident, the
victim was taken to Brahmaputra Diagnosistics and Hospital,
Dibrugarh for his treatment. During the treatment he succumbed to
his injuries on 21-04-2014. The claimants alleged that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tata
Indica. The accident occurred at Bordubi under Bordubi Police
Station. After the accident, police was informed and registered the
case as Tinsukia P.S. Case No.50 of 2014 under Sec.279/304(A) of
IPC by the police and started investigation. The claimants in the
claim petition further stated that, at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 58 years and his monthly salary was
Rs.1,06,982/-. Hence this case.
Page No.2 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-3-

3. On receipt of the notices, the Opposite Party No.3

United India Insurance Company Ltd. entered its appearance and
filed their W.S. in order to contest the case. Opposite Party No.3
stated that the claim petition is not maintainable in the present
form. That the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder of necessary
party. That the claim petition is barred by principles of estoppels,
waiver and acquiescence and that the claim petition is
misconceived, frivolous and untenable under the law. By filing W/S
opposite party No.3, denied almost all the averments of the claim
petition. The Opposite party No.3 denied the involvement of the
offending vehicle in the accident and also stated that the claim of
the claimants is highly, exaggerated and exorbitant. It is further
averred that the liability if any, of the answering opposite party will
always be subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy. So, it is prayed to dismiss the claim petition. The case
proceed ex-parte against O. P. No.1 and 2 owner and driver of the
offending vehicle as there were remain absent after received of
notice.
4. Upon pleadings of the parties the following issues were
framed by the Tribunal :-
1. Whether victim Late Padeswar Moran died in the
alleged road accident dated 14-04-2014 involving the
vehicle bearing registration No.AS-01-BE-3306 and
whether the said accident took place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle ?
2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get any
compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom

Page No.3 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-4-

amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation

amount will be payable ?
5. The claimants, in order to prove this case, examined
altogether 03 (three) witnesses, namely, 1. Sri Deepjyoti Moran as
P.W.1, 2. Sri Rubul Borah as P.W.2 and 3. Sri Biren Gogoi as P.W.3
and exhibited some documents vide, Ext.1 accident information
report; Ext.2 death certificate; Ext.3 copy of post-mortem report;
Ext.4 copy of Identity Card of the deceased; Ext.5 salary certificate;
Ext.6 Authority Letter; Ext.7 Service Particulars; Ext.8 (1 to 6) copy
of Service Book; Ext.9 Last Pay Certificate and Ext.10 (I to VI)
Form-16 of the deceased. The contesting Opposite Party No.3 has
also adduced evidence of two witnesses, namely, 1. Mintu Sarma as
D.W.1 and 2. Sri Sushanta Sarkar as D.W.2.
6. Heard argument of learned counsels for both the sides
and perused the record. Both the parties i.e. claimants and O.P.
No.3, have also submitted their written arguments which I have
been gone through.
DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF
7. I have carefully examined the evidence on record and
after hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for
the claimants and the Opposite Party No.3, I give my decision on
the above issues as follows:
ISSUE NO.1
8. Before, appreciating the evidences, I am of the opinion
that the evidence so adduced by the claimants, needs to be
reflected.
The P.W.1 Sri Deepjyoti Moran, the son of the
deceased has deposed in his evidence that the deceased was his
father. His father met with an accident on 14-04-2014. At the time
Page No.4 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-5-

of the accident, his father Padeswar Moran was travelling on a

Scooty from his Office towards residence. The accident occurred at
about 01:00 P.M. near Nagajan Tamulikhat under Bordubi Police
Station. His further evidence is that the accident occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the offending Tata Indica on the
part of its driver. After the accident, his injured father was taken to
the Brahmaputra Diagnostics and Hospital at Dibrugarh for his
treatment wherein he succumbed to the injuries on 21-04-2014.
P.W.1 has further deposed that the FIR was lodged after the
accident, and after receipt of the FIR, the Officer-in-Charge,
registered the case vide Bordubi P.S. Case No.50 of 2014 under
section 279/304(A) of Indian Panel Code. P.W.1 has further
deposed that at the time of accident his father was an employee of
OIL India Ltd. and his monthly salary was Rs.1,17,396/- The P.W.1
has exhibited the Ext.1 accident information report; Ext.2 death
certificate; Ext.3 copy of post-mortem report; Ext.4 copy of Identity
Card of the deceased; Ext.5 salary certificate.
9. During cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted that he
did not see the accident. He has denied all the suggestions put to
him by the opposite party No.3, including that the accident did not
occur due to the fault of the driver of the Tata Indica.
10. Another witness which has been examined by the
claimants is Sri Rubul Borah as P.W.2. He stated in his evidence
that prior to the death, the victim Padeswar Moran was an
employee of OIL India Ltd. At the time of death, the victim was
posted at Duliajan as Tradesman Grade-V. He has also deposed
that the gross-income of the deceased for the Month of March,2014
was Rs.1,41,192.28/-. There were deduction of Rs.23,766/- as
income tax and Rs.208/- as professional tax. He has exhibited some
Page No.5 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-6-

documents such as Ext.6 Authority Letter; Ext.7 Service Particulars;

Ext.8 (1 to 6) copy of Service Book; Ext.9 Last Pay Certificate and
Ext.10 (I to VI) Form-16 of the deceased.
11. I have gone through the Ext.10 i.e. Form-16 and
found that the annual salary of the deceased was
Rs.14,42,382.44. Rs.2,496/- was deducted towards profession
tax and Rs.2,01,199/- was deducted towards income tax. It is
also revealed that the deceased also received Rs.1,61,571.55 as
Overtime Allowance and that apart, the deceased also received
Arrears for an amount of Rs.47,453.81 from previous Years. As
the professional tax of Rs.2,496/- and income tax of
Rs.2,01,199/- were non-refundable, the same are deducted from
the actual salary of the deceased. Also since Overtime Allowance
of Rs.1,61,453.81 and Arrears from Previous Years of
Rs.47,453.81, are not a part of salary, I am inclined to deduct the
same amounts from the Annual Income of the deceased.
Therefore, I hold that the annual salary of the deceased was
Rs.10,29,662.08 (after deducting Professional Tax Rs.2,496/-,
Income tax Rs.2,01,199/-, Over time allowance Rs.1,61,453.81
and Arrear Rs.47,453.81) stands at Rs.10,29,662.08 per
annum, rounded off Rs.10,29,660/- per annum.
12. P.W.3 Sri Biren Gogoi has deposed in his evidence that
on the alleged day of accident 14-04-2014 at about 01:00 P.M. he
was standing at a Pan Shop near Nagajan Tamulikhat Bus Stop. At
that moment, he noticed that one Tata Indica bearing registration
No.AS-01-BE-3306 being driven by its drier in a very rash and
negligent manner dashed one Scooty from the back side and flew
away from the place of the accident. During cross-examination he
Page No.6 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-7-

has deposed that he witnessed the occurrence at a distance of

200/300 meters. At the time of accident the offending vehicle was
driven in a very high speed. He has also deposed that police found
him at the place of accident and asked him about the accident. He
has denied the suggestion that he did not see the accident.
13. D.W.1 Sri Mintu Sharma the Office Assistant of the
Insurance Company has deposed in his evidence that the insurance
company has appointed Mr. Susanta Sarkar as an investigator to
inquire about the case. During the course of investigation, the
insurance investigator collected the Lankashi Out Post GDE No.202
dated 14-04-2014. As per the said G. D. Entry, deceased himself fell
down from the Scooty bearing registration No.AS-23-J-0338 at the
time of accident and he was riding the said Scooty. FIR was also
filed one month after the accident with manipulated facts. He has
exhibited the appointment letter as Ext.A; letter under RTI Act as
Ext.A1 and A2, extract copy of G. D. Entries as Ext.B, C, D and
insurance policy as Ext.E.
14. D.W.2 Sri Sushanta Sarkar stated in his evidence on
affidavit that he filed an application before the Superintendent of
Police, Tinsukia under the RTI, Act, 2005 and in reply to the said
application under RTI, the Superintendent of Police, Tinsukia
submitted him extract copy of Lankashi Out Post G. D. Entry No.202
dated 14-04-2014, copy of FIR and vehicular documents which is
exhibited as Ext.C and D. He has also deposed that as per the said
G. D. Entry vide No.202 dated 14-04-2014 the deceased/victim
Padeswar Moran fell down from the vehicle bearing registration
No.AS-23-J-0338. He also deposed that vehicle bearing registration
No.AS-01-BE-3306 was not involved in the accident. During cross
examination of D.W.2 Sushanta Sarkar has admitted that Exbt-A-2
Page No.7 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-8-

speaks about Bordubi P.S. Case No.50 of 2014 and the Accident
Information Report also speaks about the same Bordubi P.S. Case
No.50 of 2014. He also admitted that Ext.A-2 shows that charge
sheet has been laid down against the driver vide Charge sheet
No.66 of 2014. D.W.2 also admitted that he has not submitted the
charge-sheet before the Tribunal.
15. Though, the learned counsel on behalf of the O.P. No.3
insurance company has raised several points to dismiss the case,
there is absolutely no evidence from the defendants to disprove the
particulars of the accident or the involvement of the offending
vehicle. In view of the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.3, and the
documents on record which have remained un-rebutted, the
negligence of O.P. No.2 has been prima facie proved. Where the
answering opposite party Insurance Company wanted this Tribunal
to believe that the accident did not occur due to the rash and
negligent driving by the O.P. No.2 involving the vehicle bearing
registration No.AS-01-BE-3306, but it was the victim who met with
an accident due to his own fault, its burden to disprove the facts
proved in record by the documentary evidence. Nor the opposite
party Insurance Company placed any record of investigation report
to disbelieve the evidence of the P.W.1, P.W.3 and the documents
marked as exhibits. Moreover, through notice was served upon the
O. P. No.1 and 2, owner and driver of the Tata Indica car but they
did not appeared and contest the case. Hence, an adverse
inference can be drawn that O. P. No.1 and 2 admitted the case of
the claimant. So the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocate for
the opposite party Insurance Company has no leg to stand.
16. Therefore, upon perusal of the evidences adduced by
both the sides and documents exhibited by both the sides, it is
Page No.8 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-9-

revealed that a case was registered with the Bordubi Police Station
as Bordubi P.S. Case No.50 of 2014 under Sec.279 & 304(A) of
I.P.C. the said case was registered in connection with the accident.
It is also revealed from the evidences and document submitted by
claimants as well as contesting opposite party, that the said case
was charge sheeted and the charge sheet has been laid against the
driver of the Tata Indica bearing registration No.AS-01-BE-3306. In
this regard, I would like to refer a decision of Hon’ble Kerala High
Court in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pazhaniammal and 3 others. In the said decision, a Division
Bench of the Hon’ble Kerela High Court held that filing of a charge
sheet can be reckoned as sufficient evidence of negligence in a
claim U/S 166 of the M.V. Act and if anyone of the Parties do not
accept such charge sheet, burden must be on such Party to adduce
oral evidence.
17. It is also revealed from the record that, this Tribunal
has called for the LCR of G.R. Case along with the Case Diary of the
corresponding police case from the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tinsukia and accordingly, in pursuant to the order dated
27-12-2021, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia has sent
the record as called for and the same has been duly received. From
perusal of the case record received from the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tinsukia, it reveals that the Bordubi P.S. Case No.50 of
2014 which was arose out of Langkashi Out Post, has been ended
with Charge sheet vide Charge sheet No.66 of 2014 dated 30-09-
2014 against the driver Sri Babul Saikia.
18. Further the contesting Opposite Party No.3, has failed
to bring the owner and driver of the said offending vehicle to prove
that the said vehicle was not involved in the said accident. On the
Page No.9 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-10-

other hand, order dated 18-11-2014 reveals that case proceeded ex

parte against the owner and driver of the offending Tata Indica as
they have not appeared in the case inspite of notice received.
Further D.W.1 has deposed on the basis of investigation report
submitted by insurance investigator, therefore it can be said that
D.W.1 is the hearsay witness and not the eye witness.
19. Learned counsel for the Opposite party No.3 has
submitted that the GDE reveals that the deceased himself fell down
from his vehicle and sustained injury and other vehicle involved in
the accident and as such the GDE may be considered as
substantive evidence to prove that the Tata Indica vehicle is not
involved in the accident. On the other hand the learned counsel for
the claimants has submitted that GDE can not be considered as
substantive evidence. Learned counsel in support of his submission
also referred decisions of Hon’ble Gauhati Higher courts which are
as follows:
20. In Putu Hazarika Vs National Insurance Company
Limited & Ors. Reported in MANU/GH/0972/2012, the Hon’ble
Gauhati High Court has observed as follows:
“the said G.D. Entry cannot be treated as a substantive
piece of evidence for the purpose of ascertaining that
particular fact.”
21. In Vimla Devi & Ors. Versus National Insurance
Company Limited & Ors. reported in (2019) 2 SCC 186, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:
“Non-exhibition of documents i.e. procedural laps-not to
disentitle a claim, when otherwise sufficient evidence is
adduced and documents established the identity of the
offending vehicle:
Page No.10 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-11-

Appellants had adduced sufficient evidence

before MACT to prove accident and rash and negligent
driving of driver of offending vehicle, which resulted in
death of victim. Appellants filed materials documents to
prove factum of accident and persons involved therein
documents clearly established identity of truck involved
in accident, identity of driver driving truck, identity of
owner of Truck, name of insurer of offending truck,
period of coverage of insurance of Truck, details of
lodging FIR in police station concerned in relation to
accident- Held, the Act is a beneficial piece of
legislation and is designed in a manner, which relieves
victims from ensuring strict compliance provided in law,
which otherwise applicable to suits and other
proceedings while prosecuting claim petition filed under
the Act for claiming compensation for loss sustained by
them in accident – Held- if the court did not exhibit
documents despite appellants referring to them at time
of recording evidence, then appellants can not be
denied of their right to claim compensation on such
ground and it was nothing but a procedural lapse,
which could not be made basis to reject claim petition”.
9. Further O.P. No.3 the insurance company has argued
that the FIR was lodged after one month and 03 days of the
accident which is quite suspicious and confirms the suspicion that
the deceased, who is the husband/father of the claimamts, was
himself riding Scooty at the time of accident therefore, no third
party was involved in the accident.

Page No.11 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-12-

10. It is settled law that delay in lodging FIR is not always

fatal in claim case. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme court held
that compensation cannot be denied to a victim of a road accident
merely on the ground that there was delay in lodging an FIR. A
bench of Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Deepak Verma set
aside the order of Rajasthan High Court and Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal which had refused to grant any compensation on the
ground that the FIR in the case was lodged by the father two
months after the accident taking place. Thus the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that "We are of the considered opinion that the MACT as
well as the High Court committed error in coming to the conclusion
that lodging the FIR belatedly would result in dismissal of the claim
petition". The bench said that, "although lodging of FIR is vital in
deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same
should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings”.
22. The Hon’ble Court passed the order on a plea filed by
16-year-old boy Ravi seeking compensation for the permanent
injury he suffered in a road accident case nine years back. He
approached the Apex Court after his plea of compensation was
dismissed by the Tribunal and the High Court on the ground that
there was delay on the part of his father in lodging FIR in the case.
23. I have gone through the evidences adduced by the
witnesses and also perused the documents submitted before this
Tribunal. In support of the case, the claimants have submitted the
Ext.1 accident information report. From the Ext.1 accident
information report, it is found that the accident occurred on 14-04-
2014 at about 01:00 P.M. and the vehicle bearing No.AS-01-BE-
3306 (Tata Indica) was involved in the accident.

Page No.12 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-13-

24. Case of the claimants is that accident took place due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e.
Tata Indica. During cross-examination nothing adverse could be
elicited except that P.W.1 did not see the accident. Though P.W.1 is
not an eye witness of the accident but he has examined one eye
witness namely Biren Gogoi as P.W.3. PW1 led documentary
evidence marked as Ext.1 the Accident Information Report to
establish that his deceased father met with the accident due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid Tata Indica.
25. From the photostate copy of GR case No.943/2014, it
reveals that the case has been charge sheeted and the charge
sheet has been filed against the driver of the Tata Indica.
26. Upon perusal of the aforesaid exhibits and case record
of GR case No.943 of 2014 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tinsukia, this Tribunal found that a case was registered in
connection with the accident vide Bordubi P.S. Case No.50 of 2014
under section 279 and 304(A) IPC. Accident Information report was
prepared during preliminary investigation and later on after
investigation charge sheet was submitted against the driver namely
Babul Saikia of the Tata Indica bearing Registration No.AS-01-BE-
3306. The submission of charge sheet against the driver of the
offending vehicle can be considered as sufficient evidence of rash
and negligent driving of that vehicle. In the absence of any
evidence contrary there to, filing of the charge sheet, itself shows
that the driver of the vehicle was driving the same in a rash and
negligent manner.
27. Further in a decision of the Honourable Delhi High
Court has been referred in 2006 STPL (Comp) 77 DEL
[1(2006) ACC377=2005 ACJ 1918] in the case of Bala & Ors
Page No.13 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-14-

–Vs- Motichand Gupta Ors. The relevant Para No.6 of the

judgment is reproduced as follows :
“Plain reading of Section 158(6) and Section
166(4) of the Act shows that even the charge-sheet
submitted by the police officer to the Tribunal is to be
treated as an application for compensation by the
claims Tribunal. Once the charge-sheet is forwarded to
the Claims Tribunal, the Tribunal is immediately made
aware that the accident has been caused by the
offending vehicle and the Tribunal in that case is not
required to go into any further technicality to direct the
claimants to still prove that the offending vehicle was
involved in the accident unless, of course, the party
opposing the petition denies the involvement of such
vehicle. In the present case, neither the owner nor the
driver denied the involvement of the offending vehicle
in the accident. In that view of the matter, immediately
after the report was filed, either by the police officer
under Section 158(6) of the Act or was produced in
Court by the claimants as certified copy Exh.-P-I, in my
opinion, Claims Tribunal ought not have discarded the
same. As the Tribunal has itself observed that strict
rules of evidence are not observed in proceeding before
the Tribunal, the Tribunal should not have taken a
technical view that the charge-sheet and other
documents certified copies of which were produced
before it should have still been proved by a witness. On
perusal of the charge-sheet clearly shows that it was
the offending vehicle, which was involved in the
Page No.14 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-15-

accident and the driver of the vehicle had been charged

to face trial for an offence punishable under Section
279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code.”
28. It is the case of the claimants that deceased died as a
result of road traffic/motor vehicle accident arising out of rash and
negligent driving of a motor vehicle owned by the O.P. No.1,
driven by the O.P. No.2 and insured with the O.P. No.3. The claim
petition was preferred U/S 166 M. V. Act. Hence it is incumbent
upon the claimants to prove that the deceased died in a road
traffic accident/motor vehicle accident caused due to the rash and
negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. To
determine the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle it
has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd -Vs-
Pushpa Rana & Another reported in the 2009 Accident
Claims Journal 287 as follows:-
“The last contention of the appellant insurance
company is that the respondents/claimants should
have proved negligence on the part of the driver and in
this regard the counsel has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd. V. Meena Variyal (supra). On
perusal of the award of the Tribunal, it becomes clear
that the wife of the deceased had produced: (i) certified
copy of the criminal record of criminal case in FIR
No. 955 of 2004, pertaining to involvement of
offending vehicle (ii) criminal record showing
completion of investigation of police and issue of charge
sheet under sections 279/304A, Indian Penal Code
against the driver; (iii) certified copy of FIR, wherein

Page No.15 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-16-

criminal case against the driver was lodged; and (iv)

recovery memo and mechanical inspection report of
offending vehicle and vehicle of deceased. These
documents are sufficient proofs to reach the conclusion
that the driver was negligent. Proceedings under the
Motor Vehicle Act are not akin to proceedings in a civil
suit and hence strict rules of evidence are not required
to be followed in this regard. Hence, this contention of
the counsel for the appellant also falls face down. There
is ample evidence on record to prove negligence on part
of the driver."
29. It is an established principle of law that in a claim
petition under the Motor Vehicle Act the standard of proof to
establish rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle is not at par with the criminal case where such rashness
and negligence is required to be proved beyond all shadow of
reasonable doubt. In Kaushnamma Begum and others-Vs-
New India Assurance Company Limited reported in the
(2001) 2 SCC 9, it was inter alia held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that the issue of wrongful act or omission on the part of the
driver of the motor vehicle involved in the accident has been left to
a secondary importance and mere use or involvement of motor
vehicle in causing bodily injury or death to a human being or
damage to property would make the petition maintainable under
Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act.
30. Farther, I would like to refer a decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Dulcina Fernandes & Ors Versus
Joaquim Xavier Cruz & Anr in CIVIL APPEAL NO.9094 OF
2013 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No.13239 of 2009), wherein

Page No.16 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-17-

the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Para No.10 has opined that non-
examination of witness per se cannot be treated as fatal to the
claim set up before the Tribunal. In other words, the approach of
the Tribunal should be holistic analysis of the entire pleadings and
evidence by applying the principles of preponderance of
probability.”
31. In the present claim petition the case of the
claimants is that 14-04-2014 the deceased being a rider of the
Scooty bearing Registration No.AS-23-J-0338 was going from his
office towards his residence. When he reached near Nagajan
Tamulikhat, one Tata Indica bearing registration No.AS-01-BE-3006
had dashed the Scooty from his back side. To prove death of the
deceased arising out of rash and negligent driving by the O.P
No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, the P.W.1 produced certified
copies of the Charge Sheet filed against the driver of the offending
Tata Indica bearing Registration No.AS-01-BE-3306. On perusal of
the Accident Information Report in Form 54, FIR and Charge Sheet
makes it clear that the claim of the claimants is found corroborated
which fortifies the fact that on the aforesaid date, time and place of
occurrence the accident occurred. The P.W.3 who was present at
the time of accident has ascertained that he has witnessed the
accident. The P.W.3 has also attributed rash and negligent driving
on the part of the driver of the Tata Indica in the motor
vehicle/road traffic accident causing fatal injuries to the deceased
and ultimately the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Though the
O.P. Insurance Company cross examined this witness but failed to
elicit any deficiency or shortfall to discredit their evidence. Since
claimants side discharged its burden of proof with the help of police
papers that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by
Page No.17 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-18-

the driver of the offending vehicle it is the duty of the Insurance

Company to establish that the accident did not occur due to rash
and negligent driving of the offending vehicle rather deceased was
himself negligent solely or he contributed to the occurrence. But the
Insurance Company did not discharge its burden, merely because
that the deceased was found along with his Scooty and no other
vehicle was found to be available at the time of accident. It is
mentioned in the FIR that after causing the accident, the offending
Tata Indica was fled away from the place of accident. In this case
police investigated the case and submitted Charge Sheet against
the driver of the offending vehicle.
32. By taking into consideration of aforesaid evidence and
discussion made above, I do hold that, the driver of the offending
vehicle bearing No.AS-01-BE-3306 (Tata Indica) was involved in the
accident and the driver of the said vehicle drove the vehicle in rash
and negligent manner for which he is responsible for the alleged
accident solely.
33. From the above noted evidence as well as documents
exhibited, it is established that the alleged accident is a real fact
and the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident.
It is also established that the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and
negligent manner at the time of accident. Therefore, it is held that
on 14-04-2014, at about 01:00 P.M. the accident occurred involving
the Tata Indica bearing registration No.AS-01-BE-3306 causing
grievous injuries to the deceased, namely, Padeswar Moran
resulting his death, on the same day. It is also established that the
accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending Tata Indica car. Accordingly, this issue is
decided in affirmative and goes in favour of the claimants.
Page No.18 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-19-

ISSUE NO.2
34. Now, let us decide what should be the just and proper
compensation under the facts and circumstances of the case.
35. In the case of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “Basically only three factors
need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation
in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the
deceased; and (c) the number of dependents. The issues to be
determined by the Tribunal to arrive at the loss of dependency are
(i) additions/deductions to be made for arriving at the income; (ii)
the deduction to be made towards the personal living expenses of
the deceased; and (iii) the multiplier to be applied with reference of
the age of the deceased.”
36. The claimants in the claim petition have stated that
Padeswar Moran died at the age of 58 years. The Ext.7(1) service
particular reveals the date of birth of the deceased as 31-12-1955.
Accordingly, it is held that at the time of death, the deceased was
aged about 58 years, 03 months and 14 days. Hence, the
appropriate age group is 56-60 and multiplicand/multiplier
shall be 09 for ascertaining the loss of dependency in the instant
case.
37. Coming to the question of income and occupation of
the deceased, claimants have already proved through documentary
and official witness that the deceased was working as an
Tradesman Grade-V of Oil India Limited and his service was
permanent and his salary was Rs. Rs.10,29,660/- per annum.
38. As the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60
years, 15% is added to the income of the deceased towards future
Page No.19 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-20-

prospect, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case

of National Insurance Company Limited- Versus Pranay
Sethi and Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
39. So far as the dependency is concerned, in the claim
petition it is shown that the deceased has left behind him, four
surviving heirs/dependents, his wife, one daughter and two sons.
Accordingly as per Sarala Verma’s case the deduction towards
personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-
fourth (1/4th) where the number of dependant family members is 4
to 6,
40. Thus, the just and reasonable compensation which the
claimants are entitled to has been assessed as under :-

Sl. HEADS CALCULATION

No.

(i) Income Rs.10,29,660/- per annum

(ii) 15% of Rs.10,29,660/- to Rs.10,29660/- + Rs.1,54,449

be added as future =Rs. 11,84,109 per annum
prospect.

(iii) 1/4th of Rs.11,84,109 is Rs.11,84,109.00 minus

deducted as personal Rs.2,96,027.00
expenses of the deceased = Rs.8,88,081.75

Rounded off Rs.8,88,080/- Per

annum

(iv) Compensation after Rs. 8,88,080 X 9

multiplier of 9 is applied = Rs.79,92,720/-

Page No.20 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-21-

41. In addition to the aforesaid amount of

Rs.79,92,720/- placing reliance on a decision dated 31/10/2017
passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION
(CIVIL) NO.25590 OF 2014, the claimants are also entitled to
receive the following amount on conventional heads namely :-
Loss of consortium : Rs.44,000/-
Funeral expenses : Rs.16,500/-
Loss of estate : Rs.16,500/-
42. In total, the claimants are entitled to receive
Rs.80,69,720/- (rupees eighty lakhs sixty nine thousand
seven hundred and twenty only) as compensation.
43. Now the question is who is liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants.
It is already discussed that the accident occurred due
to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the
vehicle bearing registration number AS-01-BE-3306. Record
also transpires that the driver had possessed a valid driving license
vide No.AS-199457/WW/PVT./II, which was valid up to 07-03-2025
as such owner has not violated the conditions of the
insurance policy. It also reveals that the offending vehicle is
insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., vide policy
No.1310013113P106509836 which was valid up to 08-01-2015.
Hence, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., is liable to
pay compensation to the claimants. This issue is decided
accordingly in favour of the claimants.
AWARD
44. In the result, the claim petition is allowed on contest
and an amount of Rs.80,69,720/- (rupees eighty lakhs sixty
nine thousand seven hundred and twenty only), is awarded
Page No.21 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-22-

as compensation to the claimants. The Opposite Party No.3, United

India Insurance Company Ltd. the insurer of the offending Tata
Indica bearing registration No.AS-01-BE-3306 is directed to pay the
compensation amount of Rs.80,69,720/- (rupees eighty lakhs
sixty nine thousand seven hundred and twenty only), to the
claimants within a period of 30 (thirty) days from today, along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per cent per annum from the date
of closing of claimants’ evidence i.e. 10-03-2017 under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, till the date of payment.
45. Out of the awarded amount, Rs.20,69,720/-shall be
released to the claimants No.1, wife of the deceased to meet their
immediate exigencies.
46. Rs.10,00,000/- each shall be released to the
claimants Nos.2, 3 and 4, the children of the deceased.
47. Rs.5,00,000/- each shall be kept in fixed deposit in
the name of claimants Nos.2, 3 and 4, children of the deceased, in
any Nationalized bank of their locality, for a period of three
years.
48. The claimants No.1, shall also open two FDRs of
Rs.7,50,000/- each in her name in any nationalized bank of
her locality, for a period of 5 years.
49. To meet any urgent need for money, the claimants
have the liberty to make application to the Tribunal for withdrawal
of fixed deposit amount. The Tribunal shall consider the application
and pass appropriate order.
50. The following conditions are also imposed with respect
to the fixed deposits:-
(a) The Bank shall not permit any joint name(s) to be
added in the savings bank account or fixed deposit
Page No.22 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-23-

accounts of the claimants(s) i.e. the savings bank

account(s) of the claimants(s) shall be an individual
savings bank account(s) and not a joint account(s).
(b)The original fixed deposit shall be retained by the
bank in safe custody. However, the statement
containing FDR number, FDR amount, date of maturity
and maturity amount shall be furnished by bank to the
claimants(s).
(c) The monthly interest be credited by Electronic
Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank account of
the claimants(s) near the place of their residence.
(d)The maturity amounts of the FDR(s) be credited by
Electronic Clearing System (ECS) in the savings bank
account of the claimants(s) near the place of their
residence.
(e) No loan, advance, withdrawal or pre-mature
discharge be allowed on the fixed deposits without
permission of the Court.
(f) The concerned bank shall not to issue any cheque
book and/or debit card to claimants(s). However, in
case the debit card and/or cheque book have already
been issued, bank shall cancel the same before the
disbursement of the award amount. The bank shall
debit card(s) freeze the account of the claimants(s) so
that no debit card be issued in respect of the account of
the claimants(s) from any other branch of the bank.
(g)The bank shall make an endorsement on the
passbook of the claimants(s) to the effect that no
cheque book and/or debit card have been issued and
Page No.23 out of page No.25
 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-24-

shall not be issued without the permission of the Court

and claimants(s) shall produce the passbook with the
necessary endorsement before the Court on the next
date fixed for compliance.
(h)It is clarified that the endorsement made by the
bank along with the duly signed and stamped by the
bank official on the passbook(s) of the claimants(s) is
sufficient compliance of clause (g) above.
51. Free copy of judgment and order be given to both sides
forthwith.
52. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, parties
are left to bear their own costs.
The MAC Case is disposed of accordingly.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the open Court on this
the 2nd day of April, 2022, in Guwahati.

Dictated & corrected by me: Naim Uddin Ahmed,

M E M B E R,
Naim Uddin Ahmed, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
No.2,
MEMBER, M.A.C.T. No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati
Kamrup (M) Guwahati

Page No.24 out of page No.25

 MAC Case No.1013 of 2014

-25-

APPENDIX
I. Claimants Examined
1) P.W.1 : Sri Deepjyoti Moran
2) P.W.2 : Sri Rubul Borah
3) P.W.3 : Sri Biren Gogoi
II. Opp.Party Examined
1. D.W.1 : Sri Mintu Sharma
2. D.W.2 : Sri Sushanta Sarkar
III. Claimants exhibited
1. Ext.1 : Accident information report
2. Ext.2 : death certificate
3. Ext.3 : copy of post-mortem report
4. Ext.4 : copy of Identity Card of the deceased
5. Ext.5 : salary certificate
6. Ext.6 : Authority Letter
7. Ext.7 : Service Particulars
8. Ext.8 (1 to 6) : copy of Service Book
9. Ext.9 : Last Pay Certificate
10. Ext.10 (I to VI) : Form-16 of the deceased
IV. Opp.party exhibited
1. Ext.A : Appointment letter
2. Ext.A1 and A2 : Letter under RTI Act
3. Ext.B, C, D : Extract copy of G. D. Entries
4. Ext.E : Copy of insurance policy

Naim Uddin Ahmed,

M E M B E R,
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.2,
Kamrup (M), Guwahati.
Page No.25 out of page No.25