Kumari Chinu Lodh vs Deputy Secretary And 2 Ors,

Page No.# 1 / 10


GAHC010233322013


2026:GAU-AS:16267

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

[THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH]



MAC.APP No. 2/2013
Kumari Chinu Lodh, W/O Late Biren Lodh,
Vill. Sikari Pather, P.S Bakalia, Dist. Karbi
Anglong Assam, Presently Residing At
Bharalumukh, Guwahati, P.S.
Bharalumukh, Dist. Kamrup, Assam
………………Petitioner

- Versus -

1. Deputy Secretary, I/C Transport, Karbi
Anglong Autonomous Council, Diphu,
P.D. Diphu, Dist. Karbi-Anglong, Assam
Owner Of Vehicle No. AS-09- 5171
2. Kam Singh Bey, S/o Late Hona Ram Bey
Vill. Pub Dikharugaon, P.S. Howraghat
Dist. Karbi Anglong Assam, Driver of
Vehicle No. AS-09-5171
3. The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., Ullubari,
Guwahati 781007, Dist. Kamrup, Assam,
to be represented by its Regional

Page No.# 2 / 10


Manager Insurer of Vehicle No. AS-09-
5171


………………. Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY


Advocates :

Appellant : Mr. D.K. Kalita, Advocate
Respondent no. 3 : Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate
Date on which judgment is reserved : N.A.
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 03.11.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : No
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced ? : Yes



JUDGMENT & ORDER


1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended
[‘the Act’, for short], is preferred against a Judgment and Award dated
10.10.2012 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge [FTC] no. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati [‘the
Tribunal’, for short] in a claim application preferred under Section 166 of the
Act, registered and numbered as MAC Case no. 1045/2009.

Page No.# 3 / 10


2. The appellant herein who was the claimant in MAC Case no. 1045/2009, is the
wife of one Late Biren Lodh. The appellant-claimant preferred the claim
application before the Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 166 of the
Act in respect of death of her husband in a motor vehicular accident occurred on
27.03.2009.

3. As per the claim application, the deceased, Late Biren Lodh was proceeding
from Bakalia Bazar towards his house by riding a bicycle and when he reached
near a place at Irrigation Colony on National Highway no. 36 at about 08-45
a.m., a Bus bearing registration no. AS-09/5171 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the
offending vehicle’ for easy reference] coming from Nagaon side, at a high speed
and allegedly in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down Biren Lodh. As a
result of the accident, Biren Lodh fell down on the road side and died
instantaneously at the spot due to injuries sustained on his person.

4. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant impleaded the
owner of the offending vehicle, that is, the Deputy Secretary, In-Charge,
Transport, Karbi Anglong Autonomous Council as the opposite party no. 1 and
the driver of the offending vehicle as the opposite party no. 2. The insurer of the
offending vehicle, that is, the respondent no. 3 herein was impleaded as the
opposite party no. 3. On receipt of notices from the Tribunal, the opposite party
no. 1 and the opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed written statement denying
the case of the claimant. The respondent no. 3 – insurer as the opposite party
no. 3 also contested the proceedings by filing its written statement.

5. After examining the pleadings of the parties, the first issue of the two issues
framed by the Tribunal was : ‘Whether the victim Late Biren Lodh died as a
result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated
27.03.2009 at about 8:45 A.M., near Irrigation Colony on the N.H. No. 36 under
Bakalia Police Station, involving the Bus bearing registration no. AS-09/5171 due
to rash or negligent driving of the driver of the said offending vehicle?’. The

Page No.# 4 / 10


second issue framed by the Tribunal was : ‘Whether the claimant is entitled to
get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and from whom amongst the
opposite parties, the compensation amount will be payable?’.

6. To establish the case, the claimant side examined two witnesses and those two
witnesses were cross-examined by opposite parties. The claimant examined
herself as P.W.1 and P.W.2 was one Sri Mintu Das, who adduced his evidence as
an eye-witness to the accident. The opposite parties did not, however, examine
any witness on their behalf.

7. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the claimant side also exhibited a
number of documents including the Accident Information Report [Ext.1]; a
certified copy of FIR registered as Bakalia Police Station Case no. 24/2009 under
Sections 279/304[A]/427, Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending
vehicle [Ext.2]; and a certified copy of the Post-Mortem Examination Report
[Ext.3] wherein it was reported that the cause of death of the deceased was due
to massive intra-cranial haemorrhage caused by blunt trauma of head.

8. On analysis of the evidence brought on record, the Tribunal, on the first issue,
recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and the deceased died
as a result of the injuries sustained on his person in the accident.

9. I have heard Mr. D.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M.
Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 – insurer.

10. Though the names of the learned counsel for respondent no. 1 are reflected in
the Cause-List, none has appeared today to represent the respondent no. 1 at
the time of hearing. As per Order dated 05.04.2013, notice upon respondent no.
2 was presumably served. None has appeared for the respondent no. 2 also.

Page No.# 5 / 10


11. Mr. Kalita, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the
present appeal has been preferred on the limited aspect regarding the
enhancement of the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal. He has
submitted that while arriving at the amount of compensation, the Tribunal did
not take into account a number of relevant factors into consideration. The
compensation amount awarded at Rs. 3,48,000/- cannot, therefore, be termed
as just compensation. It is his contention that the Tribunal did not consider the
future prospects of the deceased which arriving at the final compensation
amount. He has submitted that even for a self-employed person like the
deceased, the future prospects ought to have been taken into consideration. In
addition, the amounts given under the conventional heads were also lesser. It is
his further contention that the monthly income of the deceased taken by the
Tribunal is on the lower side. According to him, the deceased was running a
bicycle repairing shop and it was claimed by the appellant-claimant that the
deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month at the time of his death.

12. In response, Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.
3-insurer has submitted that though it was canvassed before the Tribunal that
the deceased was running a bicycle shop at Patradisa, Bakalia and was earning
Rs. 6,000/- per month from the said bicycle repairing shop, the claimant side
had failed to adduce any iota of evidence, not to speak of any documentary
evidence regarding existence of a bicycle repairing shop, regarding the income
of the deceased. In absence of any evidence in relation to the monthly income
of the deceased, the Tribunal was right to take Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income
of the deceased. Ms. Choudhury has further contended that since from the claim
application and the testimony of claimant itself, it has emerged that the
deceased was not having any regular salary, the question of granting any
amount for future prospects does not arise. It is further contended that as the
appellant-claimant had already been disbursed the amount awarded by the
Tribunal under the conventional heads there is no question for any modification,
at the appellate stage.

Page No.# 6 / 10



13. The submission of the learned counsel for the parties are duly considered. The
evidence, materials on record, as available in the TCR, have been perused.

14. The Tribunal on the basis of the evidence on record had reached a finding in the
impugned Judgment and Award dated 10.10.2012 that the Bus bearing
registration no. AS-09/5171 was the offending vehicle and as a result of the
accident involving the offending vehicle, the deceased, due to injuries sustained
on his person, died instantaneously at the spot. Admittedly, the respondent no.
3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal had accordingly, saddled
the respondent no. 3-insurer with the liability to pay the amount of
compensation awarded by it. The Judgment and Award dated 10.10.2012 has
not been assailed in any manner by the respondent no. 3-insurer either by filing
an appeal or by filing any cross-objection. Therefore, the question of liability to
pay the compensation amount is not required to be gone into in this appeal.

15. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 3,48,000/- as compensation along
with interest @ 6% per annum on it from the date of filing of the claim
application till payment holding that the said amount of compensation would be
just and reasonable amount of compensation. To arrive at the said amount, the
rd
Tribunal took Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Deducting 1/3
from the monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- towards personal expenses of the
deceased, the Tribunal arrived at the figure of Rs. 24,000/- as annual loss of
dependency. Based on the testimony of P.W.1, and the age reported in the
Post-Mortem Examination Report [Ext.3], the Tribunal accepted the age of the
deceased as 45 years and applied 14 as the multiplier. After arriving at the
amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- as total loss of dependency, the amounts of 2,000/-,
Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- were added towards funeral expenses, loss of estate
and loss of consortium to arrive at the final amount of compensation of Rs.
3,48,000/-.

Page No.# 7 / 10


16. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have referred to the decisions of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma [Smt] and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, [2009] 6 SCC 121 and National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, [2017] 16 SCC
680, in the course of the submissions.

16.1. In Sarla Verma [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court had adopted as a rule of
thumb for addition of 50% of actual salary to the actual salary income of the
deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job
and was below 40 years. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had further held that the
addition should be only 30% if the age of the deceased was 40 to 50 years. It
was further observed that where the deceased was self-employed or was on a
fixed salary, the Court would usually take only the actual income at the time of
death.

16.2. But the Constitutional Bench in Pranay Sethi [supra] after considering the
decision in Sarla Verma [supra] and a host of other decisions has observed that
in case of a deceased who had held permanent job with inbuilt grant of annual
increment, there is an acceptable certainty. But to state that the legal
representatives of a deceased who was on a fixed salary would not be entitled
to the benefit of future prospects for the purpose of computation of
compensation would be inapposite. Taking into consideration a host of factors
including the passage of time, the changing society, escalation of price, the
change in price index, the human attitude to follow a particular pattern of life,
etc., the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi [supra] has held that an
addition of 40% of the established income of the deceased towards future
prospects and an addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of
40 to 50 years would be reasonable in case the deceased was a self-employed
person.

Page No.# 8 / 10


16.3. In the conclusion part of the Judgment in Pranay Sethi [supra], more
specifically, in paragraph 59.8, it has been held that reasonable figures on
conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral
expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.
The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three
years.

17. As it has emerged from the facts on record, the deceased was not having any
permanent job with the assurance of a salary with increments, the case of the
deceased is to be considered as that of a self-employed person. The learned
counsel appearing for the parties have not advanced anything on the age of the
deceased and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. Therefore, the age of the
deceased is to be accepted as 45 years with ‘14’ as the applicable multiplier, for
Sarla Verma
a person of 45 years, the applicable multiplier, as per [supra]
should be ‘14’.. As the deceased was aged between 40 years to 50 years, this
Court finds that the compensation amount should have contained the additional
amount towards future prospect at 25%.

18. It is noticed from the Judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Saroj and others vs. IFFCO-TOKIO General Insurance Co. and others., 2024
INSC 816 [Date of Accident : 04.08.2015 & Date of Judgment : 24.10.2024];
Sadhana Tomar and others vs. Ashok Kushwaha and others, Civil Appeal
no. 3763 of 2025 [Date of Accident : 25.09.2016 & Date of Judgment :
24.01.2025]; Janabai W D/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade and others vs. M/s ICICI
Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., SLP[Civil] no. 21077 of 2019 [Date of
Accident : 01.06.2007 & Date of Judgment : 10.08.2022]; the Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Niru @ Niharika and others, SLP[C] no. 11340 of
2020 [Date of Accident : 18.11.1995 & Date of Judgment : 14.07.2025], the
Hon’ble Suprme Court has applied the principles recorded in paragraph 59.8 in
Pranay Sethi [supra] for adding amounts under the conventional heads.

Page No.# 9 / 10


19. In the absence of any iota of evidence / material with regard to the claim of the
appellant-claimant, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs. 6,000/-
monthly, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in
so far as taking of Rs. 3,000/- as monthly income of the deceased by the
Tribunal.

20. On the basis of the above observations, the compensation payable is calculated
as under :-

Final Compensation Payable
Heads
Monthly Income Rs. 3000/-
Annual Income Rs. 36,000/-
Future prospects @ 25% [750] + Rs. 3000/-
=Rs. 3,750/-
Personal Expenses [Deduction of 1/3] Rs. 3,750/- - Rs. 1250/-
= Rs. 2,500/- p.m.
Annual loss of dependency Rs. 30,000/-
Multiplier 14
Loss of dependency Rs. 30,000/- x 14 =Rs. 4,20,000/-
Loss of Estate Rs. 18,150/-
[10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs]
Funeral Expenses Rs. 18,150/-
[10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs]
Loss of Consortium Rs. 48,400/-
[10% increase after 3 yrs + 3 yrs]
x 3 = Rs. 1,45,200/-
Total compensation Rs. 5,04,700/-


21. It is submitted at the Bar that the compensation amount of Rs. 3,48,000/-
awarded by the Tribunal vide its Judgment and Award dated 10.10.2012 along
with interest has already been disbursed by the respondent no. 3-insurer to the

Page No.# 10 / 10


appellant-claimant and the appellant-claimant has duly received the said
amount.

22. Therefore, the additional amount of compensation awarded above Rs.
3,48,000/- i.e. Rs. 72,000/- [Rs. 4,20,000/- - Rs. 3,48,000/-] shall carry interest
at 6% per annum from the date of claim application till payment. The
respondent no. 3 – insurer, in addition to the said amount, shall also pay the
additional amount calculated under the conventional heads, Rs. 72,700/- [Rs.
84,700/- - Rs. 12,000/-] before the Tribunal within a period of two months.
Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall disburse the amount to the appellant-
claimant upon due identification. The appeal stands allowed to the extent
indicated above.

23. The TCR is to be returned to the Tribunal forthwith.



JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Pallabi
Das
Digitally signed by Pallabi Das
DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=781003,
l=Kamrup, st=Assam, street=H/no113 ,
Silpukhuri, GMC Assam India 781003 Near Bank
of india, title=7618,
2.5.4.20=01b493500a5bb45e0570c54eeae9ea4
b67074cdaf44d001cf5b9dc43827e13ee,
serialNumber=48f77e54522021039f8396a31b5
bc8bb8ae8a996b28b54ec23937ab4014046e1,
[email protected], cn=Pallabi Das
Date: 2026.11.05 19:04:32 +05'30'