Smt Anita Chanda And 2 Ors vs M/S M.K.D. Carrying Corporation And 4 Ors

Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010008932016

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./49/2016
SMT ANITA CHANDA and 2 ORS
W/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR CHANDA
2: MISS RESHMI CHANDA
D/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR CHANDA
3: MASTER ADITYA CHANDA
S/O LATE RANJIT KUMAR CHANDA
CLAIMANT NO. 3 IS MINOR
HE IS REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
GUARDIAN AND NEXT FRIEND SMTI ANITA CHANDA
ALL RESIDENTS OF BIRUBARI
GOPINATH NAGAR
GUWAHATI 781016
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
VERSUS
M/S M.K.D. CARRYING CORPORATION and 4 ORS
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NH-37, GALI NO. 7, WARD NO. 56 BELTOLA ,
GUWAHATI 781028, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
2:MR.MOHAMMAD ALI
S/O MD. KHURSED ALI
R/O NATIONAL HIGHWAY 31
NEAR ASSAM KATA
GUWAHATI 781029
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
3:UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Page No.# 2/12
HAVING ITS REGISTERED / HEAD OFFICE AT UNITED INDIA HOUSE
24 WHITES ROAD
CHENNAI AND REGIONAL
DIVISIONAL AND BRANCH OFFICES AT SEVERAL PLACES
INCLUDING THE CONCERNED BRANCH OFFICE BEING FANCY BAZAR
BRANCH AT FANCY BAZAR
GUWAHATI 781001 IN THE DIST. OF KAMRUP M
ASSAM.
4:NORESH KUMAR DAS
S/O SRI H.K. DAS
R/O DEMSEINIONG
LAITUMKHRAH
DIST. EAST KHASI HILL
SHILLONG 793003 MEGHALAYA
5:NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED / HEAD OFFICE AT 3
MIDDLETON STREET
KOLKATA 700071 AND REGIONAL
DIVISIONAL AND BRANCH OFFICES AT SEVERAL PLACES
INCLUDING THE CONCERNED DIVISIONAL OFFICE BEING DIVISION NO.
10
FLAT NO. 101-106
NI
B.M.C. HOUSE
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-11000
B E F O R E
Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the Appellants : Shri B.K. Jain, Advocate.

Advocates for the respondents : Shri A.J. Saikia (R-3)
Ms. R.D. Mozumdar (R-5).
Date on which judgment is reserved : 06.10.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.11.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes

Page No.# 3/12

Judgment & Order

The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 in respect of a judgment and Order dated 14.10.2025 passed
by the learned MACT, Kamrup (M) in MAC Case No. 493/2011. The appeal has
been filed for enhancement of the Award.
2. Before coming to the grounds of appeal, it would be convenient to put on
record the facts of the case in brief.
3. The appellants (herein after interchangeably referred as claimants) are the
legal heirs of the deceased Ranjit Kr. Chanda who had expired in a motor
accident occurring on 22.11.2010. While the claimant no. 1 is the wife, the
claimant nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased. On the fateful day, the
deceased along with 4 others was proceeding from Silchar to Guwahati in an
Alto Car bearing Registration No. ML05G1996 and on reaching Mawmang, a
truck bearing Registration No. AS01BC7881 coming from the opposite side in a
rash and negligent manner lost control over the vehicle and dashed against the
Alto Car in which the deceased passed away. The deceased was a Senior
Accounts Officer of the Assam State Transport Corporation (ASTC) and his
monthly salary was Rs.22,380/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred
Eighty) only. Accordingly, a claim of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakh) only
was made.
4. The claim was resisted by the Insurance Company. While there was no
denial to the insurance coverage of the offending truck, the income of the
deceased as well as the occurrence was denied. It was also contended that the
claim was excessive.The owner of the Alto vehicle also filed written statement

Page No.# 4/12
and had pleaded that the accident was a result of negligent driving of the truck
and he should be exonerated from the burden of payment of compensation.
5. The following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:
i. Whether there was an accident on 22.11.2010 involving Tata Truck
bearing registration No. AS-01-BC-7881 as alleged?
ii. Whether late Ranjit Kr. Chanda died in the said accident?
iii. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the vehicle no. AS-01-BC-7881?
iv. To what compensation the claimants are entitled to and against whom?
6. The claimants had adduced evidence through 2 (two) nos. of witnesses
and had also exhibited the relevant documents. On the other hand, the opposite
parties did not adduce any evidence.
7. The learned Tribunal had answered all the issues in favour of the
claimants. However, so far as Issue No. 4 which is on the amount of
compensation, a total amount of Rs.32,27,696/- (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs
Twenty Seven Thousand Six Hundred Ninety Six) only was awarded with interest
@ 6% per annum from the date of adducing evidence. The aforesaid amount
was arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the following manner:
Loss of dependency – 2, 30, 592 x 13 Rs.29,97,696/-
Loss of consortium Rs.1,00,000/-
Loss of love and affection to minor
Rs.1,00,000/-
children
Funeral expenses Rs.25,000/-
Loss of estate Rs.5,000/-

Page No.# 5/12
TOTAL Rs.32,27,696/-

8. Being aggrieved by the adequacy of the aforesaid Award including the
aspect of interest, the present appeal has been preferred.
9. I have heard Shri B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also
heard Shri A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and Ms. R.D.
Mozumdar, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.
10. Shri Jain, the learned counsel for the appellants / claimants has submitted
that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the evidence on
record, more specifically, the evidence of PW2-Sirajul Hoque who was an
Accounts Officer of the ASTC- the employer of the deceased. It is submitted that
the learned Tribunal had overlooked the aspect of Dearness Allowance
(hereinafter DA) while computing the monthly salary of the deceased resulting
in arriving at a lesser award. He has submitted that PW2 had exhibited the
Salary Certificate and also the salary particulars. He has submitted that while
the learned Tribunal had taken the monthly salary as Rs.22,380/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty) only with a deduction of Rs.208/-
(Rupees Two Hundred Eight) only per month as professional tax, the DA aspect
was not taken into consideration. He has submitted that DA is part of the
monthly salary which was liable to be taken into consideration.
11. The learned counsel has also submitted that the rate of interest as well as
the date from which such interest is to be calculated is also not in accordance
with law. He has submitted that while 6% interest per annum is granted, the
standard norm is 9% per annum. He has also submitted that such interest is to
be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition whereas in the instant
case, the interest has been granted from the date of adducing evidence. In this

Page No.# 6/12
regard, the learned counsel has relied upon the following judgments:
(i) (2015) 14 SCC 353 (Narendra Singh vs. Nishant Sharma and
Anr.)
(ii) 2022 (6) GLT 89 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Lata
Agarwala and Ors.)
(iii) 2023 (6) GLT 523 (Branch Manager, Cholaman-Dalam vs. Jitu
Bura Gohain)

12. In the case of Narendra (supra), interest was granted @ 9% per annum
and reliance was placed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
Upahar Cinema Case. A similar view was taken by our High Court in the case of
Lata (supra) as well as Jitu Bura Gohain (supra).
13. The learned counsel has also cited the judgment of a Division Bench of
this High Court in the case of Aswini Bala Das vs. New India Insurance
Company Ltd. reported in 1999 (2) GLT 231 wherein it was held that it
would be an unjust approach if the claimants are deprived of interest from the
date of application.
14. On the claim that the income assessed by the learned Tribunal is less and
unjust, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of
this Court in the case of Ms. Binita Baruah Phukan vs. Ajit Borah reported
in (2019) 5 GLR 686 . In the said case, it has been held that other allowances
apart from the basic salary should be considered in the monthly income. He has
submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the DA while
computing the monthly income of the deceased.
15. Shri Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant accordingly submits that

Page No.# 7/12
the Award needs to be enhanced.
16. Per contra, Shri A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent –
Insurance Company has resisted the prayer for enhancement of the Award. He
has submitted that the monthly income was correctly assessed by the learned
Tribunal as Rs.22,172/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred Seventy
Two) only. The learned Tribunal has also added future prospect as 30% and has
accordingly come to a figure of Rs.28,824/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand
Eight Hundred Twenty Four) only.
17. So far as the contention made on the rate of interest is concerned, the
learned counsel has submitted that no particular rate has been provided in the
statute and it is the discretion of the learned Tribunal. He accordingly submits
that there may not be any requirement to interfere with the same as 6% per
annum is a reasonable rate of interest.
18. With regard to the date from which the interest has been granted viz the
date of adducing evidence, Shri Saikia, the learned counsel has taken a similar
stand as taken with regard to the rate of interest. He has submitted that in
absence of any provision in the statute, grant of interest from the date of
adducing evidence may not be held as an unreasonable approach.
19. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed
before this Court have been carefully perused. This Court has also gone through
the original records of the learned Tribunal.
20. The principal ground urged in support of the prayer for enhancement is
that the monthly income has not been properly taken into consideration by the
learned Tribunal. It is the specific case of the appellant that the DA has not
been added to the gross income resulting in deprivation from the lawful

Page No.# 8/12
entitlement. As noted above, reliance has also been placed on certain decisions
that DA is to be taken as a part of the salary.
21. To examine the aforesaid claim, it would be necessary to sift the materials
on record including the evidence, especially of the PW2 who is an Accounts
Officer of the ASTC- the employer of the deceased. The said PW2 has exhibited
the Salary Statement of the deceased as Ext.10. A perusal of the same would
reveal that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.22,380/- (Rupees
Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty) only from October 2010. In the
said Certificate, there was also a deduction separately shown on different heads
amounting to Rs.5,627/- (Rupees Five Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Seven). A
further salary slip for the month of November, 2010 has been exhibited which
however is for 21 days as the death was on 22.11.2010 and the calculation was
done by taking the salary of the same amount of Rs.22,380/- (Rupees Twenty
Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty). The salary particulars of the deceased
from December, 2010 to June, 2013 has been exhibited as Ext.12. The said
document however specially mentions that such salary particulars was for the
aforesaid period if the deceased would have survived and only from the month
of December, 2010, the ingredient of DA has been introduced. It clearly appears
that the claim is based on Ext. 12. However, as mentioned above, Ext.12 is on a
speculation if the deceased would have been alive. On the contrary, the
materials on record in the form of a Salary Statement clearly shows that no DA
was separately calculated and the monthly income was shown as Rs.22,380/-
(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Three Hundred Eighty) which the learned
Tribunal has correctly taken.
22. There is no dispute to the proposition that DA should be taken to be a
part of the salary in which regard, the learned counsel for the appellant had

Page No.# 9/12
placed reliance upon a no. of judgments including the case of Ms. Binita
Baruah Phukan (supra). However, in the instant case, the documentary
evidence is contrary to the aforesaid prayer for enhancement. This Court is of
the opinion that in absence of any materials, such claim cannot be presumed
only on the basis of speculation, as provided by Ext.12. The ratio of the
judgments cited in this regard shall not be applicable in the facts of the present
case.
23. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal has
granted interest @ of 6% per annum. Though, as contended by the learned
counsel for the Insurance Company, no particular rate has been provided in the
MV Act, the judicial precedentsare in the line that 9% per annum interest has
been held to be reasonable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Narendra (supra), by following the principles laid down in the earlier case of
Upahar Cinema has held 9% per annum interest to be a reasonable rate. This
High Court in the case of Lata (supra) has also held 9% per annum to be a
reasonable rate of interest.
24. In this regard, this Court would take aid from certain observations and
opinion expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttamma
and Others v. K.L. Narayana Reddy and Another reported in (2013) 15
SCC45 which are as follows:
“ 59. This Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 9 noticed that the Nationalized Banks are granting
interest @ 9% on fixed deposit for one year and held as follows:

“ 24. Now, we have to fix up the rate of interest. Section 171 of the
MV Act empowers the Tribunal to direct that “in addition to the
amount of compensation simple interest shall also be paid at such
rate and from such date not earlier than the date of making the

Page No.# 10/12
claim as may be specified in this behalf”. Earlier, 12% was found to
be the reasonable rate of simple interest. With a change in economy
and the policy of Reserve Bank of India the interest rate has been
lowered. The nationalised banks are now granting interest at the
rate of 9% on fixed deposits for one year. We, therefore, direct that
the compensation amount fixed hereinbefore shall bear interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim made by the
appellants. The amount of Rs 50,000 paid by the Insurance
Company under Section 140 shall be deducted from the principal
amount as on the date of its payment, and interest would be
recalculated on the balance amount of the principal sum from such
date.”

60. This Court in Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General, Geological
Survey of India &Anr. (2003) 3 SCC 148 noticed that varying rate of
interest is being awarded by the Tribunals, High Courts and this Court. In
the said case, this Court held that the rate of interest must be just and
reasonable depending on the facts and circumstances of the case and
should be decided after taking into consideration relevant factors like
inflation, change in economy, policy being adopted by the Reserve Bank of
India from time to time, how long the case is pending, loss of enjoyment
of life etc.

61. In Supe Dei v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.&Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 513 this
Court held that proper interest would be 9% per annum.

62. In view of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, 1988 (Section 171) and
the observation of this Court, as noticed above, we keep this question
open for Tribunals and Courts to decide the rate of interest after taking
into consideration the rate of interest allowed by this Court in similar case
and other factors such as inflation, change in economy, policy adopted by
the Reserve Bank of India from time to time and the period since when
the case is pending.”


25. From the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that rate of
interest should be 9% per annum and not 6% per annum, as granted by the
learned Tribunal.

Page No.# 11/12
26. As regards the date from which such interest has been granted, this Court
finds force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant
that such date should be the date of filing the claim petition. The judicial
precedents also support the aforesaid contention. Further, there is no material
on record to suggest that the proceeding was unnecessarily delayed by the
claimants. Therefore, the direction of the learned Tribunal of calculating the
interest from the date of adducing evidence stands interfered with and such
interest is to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition.
27. The learned counsel for the appellant had also made submission on the
aspect of loss of consortium in which there is an award of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) only. It is contended that consortium has been laid down to
be Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only per head and there being three
claimants, the same would be Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty
Thousand) only with a further increase @ 10% after every 3 years. However, it
is noticed that the learned Tribunal has also granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh) only under the head - “Loss of love and affection to minor
children”. As per the principles laid down by the Three Judges Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the landmark case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 such Head is
not contemplated. This Court is however of the opinion that the said Head can
be treated to be in the nature of consortium. By balancing, this Court is of the
opinion that interference on the above Head may not be to the interest of the
appellants -claimants and therefore, the amounts granted under the aforesaid
Heads are not touched.
28. Similarly, while for funeral expenses, as per the principles laid down, the
amount prescribed is Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only, the learned

Page No.# 12/12
Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) only, for Loss
of Estate, while the amount prescribed is Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen
Thousand) only, the amount granted is Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only.
Therefore, any interference on the amount on the aforesaid two Heads would
not make any substantial difference in the total amount.
29. In the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds only
on the two aspects of rate of interest and the date from which such interest is
to be reckoned. It is accordingly directed that while the other aspects of the
impugned award would remain intact, the rate of interest would be 9% per
annum which is to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition.
30. The respondent no.3 i.e., United India Insurance Company is accordingly
directed to pay the balance amount to the appellants in terms of the present
judgment expeditiously and preferably within a period of 45 days from today. In
case such amount is not deposited within the stipulated time, further interest @
9% would accrue.
31. The appeal partly succeeds.
32. Send back the TCRs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant