National Insurance Company Ltd vs Haliman Nessa And 3 Ors

1

GAHC010209762018

2026:GAU-AS:13206

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

MACApp./409/2019

National Insurance Company Limited,
Having Its Registered Office And Head
Office At 3, Middleton Street Kolkatta, And
Its Regional Office At G.S. Road,
Bhangagarh, Guwahati.

…..Appellant
-Versus-
1. Haliman Nessa,
W/o Late Anu Ullah Sk,
Resident of Village Dinngdinga (Shiltaka,
P.S. Fakirganj,
District-Dhubri, Assam,
Pin-783333.

2. Nasidul Islam,
S/o Late Anu Ullah Sk,
Resident of Village Dinngdinga (Shiltaka,
P.S. Fakirganj,
District-Dhubri, Assam,
Pin-783333.

3. Md. Hafizul Hoque,
S/o Late Amjad Ali,
Resident of Village Shalbari Part I,


MACApp./409/2019 1

2

P.O. Gaurnagar, PS-Lakhipur,
District-Goalpara, Assam,
Pin-783132.
Owner of Vehicle No. AS-01/G-5931.

4. Basid Rahman,
S/o Alabuddin Rahman,
Resident of Village Shalbari Part II,
P.O. Gaurnagar, PS-Lakhipur,
District-Goalpara, Assam,
Pin-783132.
Driver of Vehicle No. AS-01/G-5931.

……Respondents

For Appellant Mr. R. Goswami,Advocate


For Respondent(s) Mr.A. Hussain, (respondent Nos. 1 and
1.
2)/claimants Advocate

Mr.M. Khan, (respondent Nos. 3 and
2.
4)/claimantsAdvocate

Date of Hearing 25.08.2026
:
10.09.2026
Date of Judgment :

BEFORE


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER

[1] Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. A. Hussain, the learned counsel for the
respondent Nos. 1/claimant as well as Mr. M. Khan, the

learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.



MACApp./409/2019 2

3

[2] This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
has been filed by the appellant/National Insurance Company
Limited impugning the judgment and award dated
13.06.2018, passed in the MAC Case No. 1054/2015 by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, whereby the
appellant/insurance company was directed to pay a
compensation amount of Rs. 24,49,500/- along with an
interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of examination

of PW-2, i.e., from 21.02.2017 till the payment.

[3] The facts relevant for adjudication of this appeal, in brief, are
that the husband/father of the present claimants, namely, Anu
Ullah Sk, met with an accident on 15.04.2015, at about 9:30
AM, while he was proceeding towards Lakhimpur on his motor
cycle. At that time the Truck bearing Registration No. AS-
01/G-5931 which was coming from the same direction
knocked him down from the back side. As a result of which he
sustained serious injuries on his person and died on the spot.
The claimants who are the widow and son of the deceased
approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1,
Kamrup, by filing an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for death of
Late Anu Ullah Sk in motor vehicular accident. The said claim

case was registered as MAC Case No. 1054/2015.



MACApp./409/2019 3

4

[4] In the aforesaid MAC Case, the driver and owner of the
offending vehicle did not appear and the enquiry proceeded
ex-parte against them. However, the present appellant
contested the claim of the claimants by filing written
statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed following issues:-

“ 1 Whether the victim, Anu Ullah Sk, died in the
alleged road accident dated 15.04.15, involving
vehicle no. AS-01/G-5931 (Truck) 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 amongst the opposite parties, the said
compensation amount will be payable?”

[5] In support of their claim, the claimants examined the claimant
No. 1 as PW-1 as well as one another witness as PW-2 and
exhibited certain documents. The insurance company did not
adduce any evidence to counter the claim of the claimants.
Ultimately, by the judgment and award dated 13.06.2018,
passed in MAC Case No. 1054/2015, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimants by
awarding them a compensation amount of Rs. 24,49,500/-
along with an interest @ 7 percent per annum from


MACApp./409/2019 4

5

21.02.2017. The aforesaid judgment and award has been

impugned in this appeal.

[6] Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that in this appeal the main contention of the
appellant is that while assessing the age of the deceased, the
Tribunal erred in not asking the claimants to produce the best
evidence regarding the age of the deceased and accepting the
age which is mentioned in the PAN Card as well as the Elector’s
Photo Identity Card, wherein the death of birth of the deceased
was mentioned as 01.01.1970. He submits that for the purpose
of choosing the multiplier while assessing the quantum of
compensation, the Tribunal took the multiplier of 13 by taking
the age of the deceased within the age group of 46-50 years on
the basis of age mentioned in the Elector’s Photo Identity Card
and PAN Card, which indicates that he was above the age of 45

years on the date of accident.

[7] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
age of the deceased ascertained by the Tribunal appears to be
incorrect when taken in contrast with the age of the present
claimants as mentioned in Exhibit-6, which is the next of kin
certificate which was issued after 33 days of the date of the
death of the husband of the claimant No. 1. He submits that
though the age of the deceased was taken to be above 45
years, however, the age of his wife, i.e., claimant No. 1 is stated
to be 50 years and age of his elder son is stated to be 32 years,
which is not believable and as such, he submits that the age


MACApp./409/2019 5

6

mentioned in the PAN Card and Elector’s Photo Identity appears

to be incorrect age.


[8] The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that
though the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation,
however, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, being trained in
law ought to have asked the claimants to produce the best
evidence regarding the age of the deceased, which was not
done in the instant case. He submits that since the deceased
was a Grade-IV employee in the PWD Department of the
Government, his service records would have been the best
evidence regarding his age at the time of his death. He submits
that considering the age of the son of the deceased shown in
the next of kin certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit-6, the
age of the deceased ought to have been assessed as more than
50 years and not within the age group of 46 years to 50 years
as done by the Tribunal. In support of his submissions, the
learned counsel for the appellant has cited a ruling of the Apex
Court in the case of “The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Meena Variyal & Ors. “AIR 2007 SC 1609.”
” reported in


[9] On the other hand, Mr. A. Hussain, the learned counsel for the
claimants/respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has
rightly assessed the age of the deceased within the age group
of 46-50 years on the basis of evidence on record and has


MACApp./409/2019 6

7

rightly applied the multiplier “13” to assess the loss of

dependency of the claimants.

[10] He submits that in a claim case under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the claimants are required to establish
their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.
He submits that in the instant case, the Elector’s Photo Identity
Card, and PAN Card show his death of birth as 01.01.1970. He
further submits that apart from that the post-mortem
examination report of the deceased indicates the age of
deceased as 48 years. He also submits that even the school
certificate which is exhibited as Exhibit-8, the date of birth of
the deceased has been shown as 01.01.1970, as such, he
submits that the Tribunal has not erred in assessing the age of
the deceased within the age group of 46-50 years. He submits
that, in view of his submissions, the appeal filed by the

appellant/insurance company is liable to be dismissed.

[11] I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials
available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited
by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their

respective submissions.

[12] The limited question for determination in this appeal is as to
whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred in


MACApp./409/2019 7

8

assessing the age of the deceased within the age group of 46-
50 years on the basis of materials available before it, or it
should have asked for the claimants to produce the service

records of the deceased for verifying the age of the deceased.

[13] There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that in a
Motor Accident Claims Case under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicle’s Act, 1988, the claimant is required to prove his case on
the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities. Though
this court does not dispute about the power of the Tribunal to
ask the claimants to produce specific evidence, if same is
available, however, same does not in any manner changes the
basic principle of proving the case of the claimants on the
touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, in a Motor
Accident Claims Case. If sufficient materials are available before
the Tribunal to come to a finding on the basis of the touchstone
of preponderance of probabilities, it would not be wrong on the
part of the Tribunal to follow that path.

[14] In the instant case, apart from the photo ID Card and PAN
Card, the school certificate (Exhibit-8) and the post-mortem
examination report were considered by the Tribunal to come to
the finding that the age of the deceased at the time of his death
was in between 46-50 years. No counter-evidence was adduced
by the Insurance Company before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal to suggest a different point of view. Moreover, Exhibit-
6, i.e., the next of kin certificate issued by the Circle Officer is


MACApp./409/2019 8

9

mainly for establishing the relationship of the claimants with the
deceased. It cannot be considered as a conclusive prove of age
of the relatives of the deceased mentioned therein. As such, this
court is of the considered opinion that the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal has not erred in assessing the age of the
deceased in the age group of 46-50 years on the basis of the

materials available before it.

[15] In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the
foregoing paragraphs, this court is of the considered opinion
that this appeal lacks merit and does not warrant any
interference by this court in this appeal.


[16] Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

[17] Send back the records of MAC Case No. 1054/2015 to the
concerned Tribunal, along with a copy of this judgment

immediately.



JUDGE
Munmun

Boruah
Digitally signed by
Munmun Boruah
Date: 2026.09.10
16:54:04 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant


MACApp./409/2019 9