Nirodad Thakuria And Ors vs Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. And 3 Ors

Page No. 1/11
GAHC010081042025

2026:GAU-AS:12654

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./159/2025
NIRODAD THAKURIA
W/O. LT. GIRISH THAKURIA, R/O. VILL. AND P/O. BAMUNDI,
P.S. SUALKUCHI, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN-781103.
2: KOUSHIK THAKURIA
S/O. LT. GIRISH THAKURIA
R/O. VILL. AND P/O. BAMUNDI
P/S. SUALKUCHI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781103.
3: JITUL THAKURIA
S/O. LT. GIRISH THAKURIA
R/O. VILL. AND P/O. BAMUNDI
P/S. SUALKUCHI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN-781103
VERSUS
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
ICICI LOMBARD HOUSE, 414, VEAR SAVAKAR MARG, NEAR
SIDDIVINAYAK TEMPLE, PRABHADEVI, MUMBAI-400025.
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2:THE MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
THIRD FLOOR

Page No. 2/11
MADHAB TOWER
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-22
KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.
3:DHARMA RAM DEKA
S/O. LT. GOLAK DEKA
R/O. VILL.- BHOMOLAHATI
P/S. BAIHATA CHARIALI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM, PIN-781121
4:DHARMA RAM DEKA
S/O. LT. GOLAK DEKA
R/O. VILL.- BHOMOLAHATI
P/S. BAIHATA CHARIALI
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM, PIN-781121

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellants : Mr. P. Sarmah, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. A. J. Saikia, Advocate
(for respondent No. 1)
: Mrs. N. Goswami, Advocate
(for respondent Nos. 3 and 4)



Date of Hearing : 21.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2026

Page No. 3/11
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard
Mr. A. J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Ms. N.
Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
2. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been
preferred by the appellants/claimants impugning the judgment and award dated
15.02.2025, passed in MAC Case No. 1739/2018 by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati, whereby the Insurance Company was
directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.13,75,852.92/- (Rupees Thirteen
Lakh Seventy Five Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty Two and Ninety Two Paisa)
along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the claimants. The
appellants are mainly aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded to
them by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment and
award.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are
that on 07.04.2018 at about 12:00 noon, the husband of the appellant No. 1,
namely, Girish Thakuriamet with an accident in front of Fancy Bazar Police
Outpost, Guwahati with a Maruti Omni Van bearing Registration No. AS-01-MB-
7328,driven by respondent No. 3, in a rash and negligent manner, hit him
causing serious injuries on his person and resulting in his death. After the death
of the husband of the appellant No. 1, the present appellants approached the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati by filing an
application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation for death of their husband/father in the aforementioned motor
vehicular accident. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No.

Page No. 4/11
1739/2018.
4. After receipt of notices from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the
Insurance Company as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicle
appeared entrance and submitted their written statementwherein they denied
their liability to pay any compensation to the present appellants.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following two issues were
framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal: -
“ (i) Whether on 07-04-2018, at about 12 Noon at Fancy Bazar, M.G.
Road, under Panbazar Police Station, an accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing Registration No.AS-
01-MB-7328 (Maruti Omni Van) on the part of its driver and whethert
he said accident has caused the death of Girish Thakuria?
(ii) If so, whether the claimants are entitled to receive any
compensation, and if yes, what should be the quantum and who
amongst the opposite parties, is liable to pay the compensation
amount?”
6. In support of their claim, the claimants adduced the evidence of five
witnesses marked as PW-1 to PW-5. Whereas, the Insurance Company did not
adduce any evidence against the claim of the present appellants. Ultimately, by
the judgment and award which has been impugned in this appeal, the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup(M) allowed the claim case by awarding
the compensation to the present appellants in the manner as has been
discussed in the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment.
7. Mr. P. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted

Page No. 5/11
that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M) had erred in passing
the impugned judgment and award by awarding compensation to the
claimants/appellants on a lower side. He submits that the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (M) erred in not taking into consideration the salary
certificate of the deceased, which was exhibited as Exhibit- 11 merely on the
ground that no official from Inland Water Department was examined to exhibit
the said document.
8. He further submits that in spite of having the salary certificate
exhibited before it as Exhibit- 11, the Tribunal erred in assessing the monthly
income of the deceased on the basis of minimum wages of unskilled workmen
th
notified as per the Government notification dated 7 December, 2018. He
further submits that when salary certificate of a Government servant is marked
as proof of income as exhibited in an inquiry before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal in a claim case, it has to be given credence. He submits that the
Tribunal has erred in ignoring the said exhibit. In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the appellant has cited a ruling of the High Court of Madras
in the case of “ Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (V)
Vs. M. Kalaialagan ” (judgment dated 11.04.2017, in CMA No. 847/2015).
9. He further submits that the PW-1 and PW-2 also categorically stated
regarding the income of the deceased in their oral testimony and they were not
cross-examined on that point by the Insurance Company. He submits that there
was no reason for the Tribunal to discard the testimony of PW- 1 and PW- 2
wherein they have stated about the monthly salary of the deceased
categorically. He submits that in view of the oral testimony of PW- 1 and PW- 2
as well as Exhibit-11, the Tribunal was not justified in adopting the lowest tier of

Page No. 6/11
minimum wages while computing the monthly income of the deceased. In
support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited a
ruling of the Supreme Court of India in the case of “ Chandra @ Chanda @C
handraram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and others” “ (2022)
reported in
1 SCC 198 ” .
10. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken into
consideration the fact that as regards the evidence of monthly income of the
deceased, the PW- 1 and PW- 2 were not cross-examined and as such their
uncontroverted testimony ought to have been taken into consideration as the
standard of proof adopted in an inquiry before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is
of preponderance of probability rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. To
support this submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited ruling of
Anita Sharma and others Vs. New India Assurance
the Apex Court in the case of “
Company Limited and another” reported in “ (2021) 1 SCC 171 ” .
11. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the Tribunal
also erred in adding only ten percent of the income of the deceased towards
future prospect. He submits that same is contrary to the guideline issued by the
Apex Court in the case of “ National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi
and others ” , reported in “ (2017) 16 SCC 682”, which categorically laid down that
when the deceased was between the age of fifty and sixty years, an addition
towards future prospect should be 15% of the actual income. He, therefore,
submits that the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal is required to be
interfered with and modified by granting the enhanced compensation to the
present appellants by taking into account the actual salary of the deceased as
reflected in Exhibit-11 as well as adding correct percentage of income of the

Page No. 7/11
deceased towards future prospect.
12. On the other hand, Mr. A. J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company, has submitted that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the
income of the deceased, as the salary certificate which was exhibited as Exhibit-
11 could not be proved by any witness from the department in which the
deceased was employed, and as such, the Tribunal rightly applied the principles
of the Minimum Wages Act for an unskilled worker to assess the monthly
income of the deceased.
13. He submits that no infirmity is there in the Tribunal assessing the
earning of the deceased at Rs.7,584.30/- per month on the basis of wages for
th
an unskilled workman as per notification of the Government of Assam dated 7
December, 2018. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award
needs no interference by this Court, and as such, prays for dismissal of the
instant appeal.
14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through
the rulings cited by learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective
submissions.
15. It appears that the limited question for determination in this appeal is as
to whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had correctly assessed the
income of the deceased for the purpose of computing compensation to be
awarded to the claimants, and whether it was correct in adding only 10% of the
actual income of the deceased towards future prospects.
16. It appears that the claimants, during the course of inquiry, had exhibited

Page No. 8/11
the salary certificate of the deceased wherein the monthly salary of the
deceased has been shown to be Rs. 31,150/-. It also appears that said salary
certificate was issued by the Joint Director, Inland Water Transport Department,
Government of Assam, Ulubari, indicating the monthly salary of the deceased
for the month of March, 2018.It also appears that a deduction of Rs. 208/- was
also made towards professional tax from the said earning of the deceased.
17. It also appears that the said certificate was exhibited by the PW-2, who
is the son of the deceased, and during his cross-examination, the only question
asked regarding Exhibit-11 was that he has not brought any witness to prove
the said salary certificate. The contention that the deceased was a government
employee working as a Khalasi in the Inland Water Transport Department of the
Government of Assam is not in dispute.
18. This Court is of considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not
taking into consideration the Exhibit 11 income certificate, wherein the monthly
income of the deceased was indicated as Rs. 31,150/-, as it is a settled
proposition of law that in an inquiry conducted under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act for ascertaining the claim of the claimants in a case arising out of a
motor vehicular accident, the standard of proof to be adopted by the Tribunal
during such inquiry is on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not
on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
19. This Court is of considered opinion that there were no valid reasons for
the Tribunal to discard the oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, wherein they have
categorically deposed that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of
Rs.31,150/-. As such, taking into consideration the Exhibit-11 with the oral
testimony of PW-1 and PW-2, which remained uncontroverted, the claimants

Page No. 9/11
were able to prove on the basis of touchstone of preponderance of probability
that the deceased was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 31,150/-. As such, the
Tribunal ought not to have assessed the monthly income of the deceased on the
basis of minimum wage is payable to an unskilled worker but should have
assessed his income on the basis of the materials before it, that is at Rs.
31,150/-.
Pranay Sethi”
20. In the case of “ (supra), the Apex Court has observed that
while determining the income, an addition of 15% of the actual salary to the
income of deceased towards future prospects has to be made in case where the
deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years.
21. In the instant case, the deceased was more than 50 years of age.
However, the Tribunal has erred in adding only 10% of his actual income
towards future prospects, which is not in conformity with the guidelines issued
by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). As such, an addition of
15% of the actual income of the deceased has to be made towards future
prospects to assess the income of the deceased for computing the quantum of
compensation payable to the claimants.
22. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, the
compensation payable to the claimants is assessed as follows: -
a) Monthly income of the deceased: Rs. 31,150/-
b) Deduction of professional tax from the monthly salary: Rs. 31,150/- – Rs.
208/- = Rs. 30,942/-
c) Addition of 15% of the income towards future prospects: Rs. 30,942/- +
Rs. 4,641/- = Rs. 35,583/-

Page No. 10/11
rd
d) Deduction of 1/3 of the income towards living and personal expenses of
the deceased: Rs. 35,583/- – Rs. 11,861/- = Rs. 23,722/-
e) Annual income of the deceased: Rs. 23,722/- × 12 = Rs. 2,84,664/-
f) Loss of dependency of the claimants (multiplying the annual income with
the multiplier of 13): Rs. 2,84,664/- × 13 = Rs. 37,00,632/-
g) Loss of estate: Rs. 15,000/-
h) Compensation on account of funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/-
i) Compensation to the claimants for loss of spousal and parental
consortium: Rs. 1,20,000/-
j) Compensation incurred on medical expenses of the deceased: Rs.
3,26,709/-
k) Total compensation payable: Rs.41,77,341/-
l) Amount already paid: Rs.13,75,852/-
m) Amount payable after deduction of the amount already paid: Rs.
28,01,489/-
23. In view of the above discussion and reasons stated, the claimants are
entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 28,01,489/- in addition to what has
already been paid to them, with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. There shall be no interest
payable on the amount added towards future prospects of the deceased.
24. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the aforesaid amount
before the Registry of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of
this judgment. On such deposit being made, the said amount shall be disbursed

Page No. 11/11
to the claimants after proper verification.
25. This appeal is accordingly allowed in terms of observations made
hereinabove.
26. Let the records of MAC Case No. 1739/2018 be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.

Abhishe
k Prem
Digitally signed
by Abhishek Prem
Date: 2026.09.03
16:19:41 +05'30'

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant