The National Insurance Company Limited vs Smti Moushumi Das And 5 Ors

Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010192232017

2026:GAU-AS:13168
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./29/2017
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,
REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA 700071,
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSTT. MANAGER, GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE,
BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI-781005
VERSUS
SMTI MOUSHUMI DAS and 5 ORS
D/O LATE THULESWAR DAS
2:SMTI RASHMI REKHA DAS
D/O LATE THULESWAR DAS
3:DIBANTAR DAS
S/O LATE THULESWAR DAS
ALL ARE R/O VILL. ERASUTIGAON
P.O. and P.S. THELAMARA
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VILL. NEW KOLIBARI
P.O. and P.S. TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM.
4:SMTI SADHANA DUTTA
W/O SRI GUNA GOBINDA DUTTA
1ST LANE
PUBARUN PATH
HENGRABARI

Page No.# 2/11
GUWAHATI 781006
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM OWNER
5:CHENIRAM SAIKIA
S/O LATE LOHIT SAIKIA
VILL. BAMUNGAON
P.O. AMGURI
DIST. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM.
6:THE ORIENTAL INSURANC CO. LTD.
TEZPUR BRANCH
TEZPUR
DIST. SONITPUR
ASSAM

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, Advocate

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Tahabildar, Advocate
Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate



· Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 09.09.2026
· Whether the pronouncement is of
the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes

Whether the full Judgment has been
·
Pronounced : No
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel appearing on

Page No.# 3/11
behalf of the Appellant; Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. S.
Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent
No. 6.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 29.05.2014 passed in MAC Case No. 168/2011
whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur
(hereinafter referred to as “the learned MACT”), awarded an
amount of Rs. 32,31,323/- inclusive of no-fault liability along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition, i.e., 23.05.2011 till payment to the claimants.
3. The instant appeal has been filed solely on the ground that
the learned MACT had overlooked the question of contributory
negligence and directed the Appellant Insurance Company to pay
the entire compensation.
4. Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant submitted that it is a case of head-on collision and
as such, there was contributory negligence on the part of the
driver of the Maruti Alto vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12G-
0871 which aspect was not properly considered by the learned

Page No.# 4/11
MACT. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to the recent
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Parmila & Ors. Vs.

Rajender & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 420 .
5. Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the claimants on the other hand submitted that though it is a case
of head-on collision, there is no evidence adduced on behalf of the
Appellant to show that the driver of the Maruti Alto vehicle also
contributed to the accident. The learned counsel further submitted
that from the materials on record including the evidence of CW-2
who was the eyewitness, there is nothing to show that the driver
of the Maruti Alto vehicle was responsible for the accident. In that
regard, the learned counsel referred to the judgments of the
Supreme Court in the case of Rajo Devi & Another Vs. Amanjeet
Kaur & Ors. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1174 as well as
Thamilarasi & Another Vs. M. Balakrishnan & Ors. reported in 2025
SCC OnLine SC 3424 .
6. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent No. 6 submitted that there is a requirement of
adducing some evidence to show that both the vehicles were
responsible. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Devi &

Page No.# 5/11
Another Vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
reported in (2014) 4 SCC 511.
7. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of
the brief facts which led to the passing of the impugned judgment
and award.
8. On 23.01.2011, the Respondent No. 3 along with his father,
Thuleswar Das (since deceased) was proceeding towards Tezpur
from Bokakhat on National Highway 37. It is averred by the
claimants that Late Thuleswar Das was driving his Maruti Alto car
bearing Registration No. AS-12G-0871 keeping to the left side of
the road and at a limited speed while observing the traffic rules. At
about 2:00 PM, when the Respondent No. 3 along with his father
reached a place called Panbari near Bokakhat Police Station, the
offending vehicle being a bus bearing Registration No. AS-01U-
3866 which was coming from the opposite direction collided with
the Maruti Alto vehicle driven by the father of the Respondent No.
3. The father of the Respondent No. 3 received serious injuries and
ultimately succumbed to such injuries on the spot. The Respondent
No. 3 also received serious injuries all over his body, specifically on
his head, face and left hip.
9. Pursuant to the accident, an FIR was lodged which was

Page No.# 6/11
registered and numbered as Bokakhat P.S. Case No. 18/2011 under
Sections 279/338/304(A)/427 IPC. The Respondent No. 3 on
account of suffering various serious injuries was admitted to the
hospital.
10. Pursuant thereto, a claim proceeding was filed by the
Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 along with their mother Smt. Nilima
Das which was registered and numbered as MACT Case No.
168/2011.
11. In the said proceedings, the driver as well as the owner of the
offending vehicle did not enter appearance in spite of service of
notice. However, the Appellant as well as the Proforma Respondent
No. 6 filed their written statements. On the basis of the pleadings,
two issues were framed, which are reproduced hereinbelow:
“ (i) Whether victim, (Late) Thuleswar Das, died as a result of the injuries
sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 23.01.2011, involving the
vehicle/s No. AS-01/K-3866 and AS-12-G-0871 (Alto Car) and whether the said
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the
offending vehicle?
(ii) Whether the claimant is 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?”

Page No.# 7/11
12. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses adduced evidence
and exhibited various documents including the Charge Sheet filed
against the driver of the offending vehicle.
13. The learned MACT decided Issue No. 1 by holding inter alia
that the offending vehicle, i.e., the Super Bus bearing Registration
No. AS-01U-3866 was solely responsible.
14. Insofar as the Issue No. 2 is concerned, the learned MACT by
taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009)
of reported in
6 SCC 121 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
Rajesh & Ors. Vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. (2013) 9
case of reported in
SCC 54 which was holding the field at the relevant point of time,
awarded a total compensation of Rs. 32,31,323/- along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of
the claim petition.
15. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
16. This Court also takes note of that at the time of admission of
the appeal, the judgment and award was stayed subject to
payment of Rs. 15,00,000/- by the Appellant.

Page No.# 8/11
17. In accordance thereto, the Appellant deposited the amount of
Rs. 15,00,000/- which was duly recorded in the order dated
20.05.2019 and the same was also withdrawn by the Respondent
Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
18. In the backdrop of the above, the question therefore arises in
the present proceedings as to whether the finding of the learned
MACT on the question of contributory negligence is required to be
interfered with.
19. This Court has duly perused the judgments referred to by the
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and from a
perusal of the said judgments, it is apparent that merely because
there is a head-on collision, it cannot be said that it is a case of
contributory negligence unless there is some evidence on record to
show that both the vehicles contributed to the accident. It is also
well settled that the burden of proof lies upon the person or party
who takes the defence of contributory negligence.
20. In the instant case, admittedly, the Appellant did not adduce
any evidence.
21. On behalf of the claimants, more particularly Claimant No. 2,
who was the eyewitness to the said accident, categorically stated

Page No.# 9/11
that the Maruti Alto vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-12G-0871
was travelling from Bokakhat to Tezpur and that the said Alto
vehicle was driven on the left side maintaining the speed. It was
also stated in his evidence-in-chief that at around 2:00 PM, the
offending vehicle, i.e., the Super Bus bearing Registration No. AS-
01-U-3866 having been driven in a rash and negligent manner
collided with the Maruti Alto car resulting in the death of his father
and serious injuries to him.
22. This Court has also taken note of the cross-examination of
CW-2 wherein his evidence-in-chief could not be dislodged. There
was not even suggestion put to the witness as to whether the
Maruti Alto car was driven on the right side of the road.
23. Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Appellant though emphasized that when it is a case of head-
on collision, it is always a case of contributory negligence. In the
opinion of this Court, merely because it is a case of head-on
collision, without any proof being placed that both the vehicles
were responsible in some way or the other, which contributed to
the accident, this Court cannot accept such submission.
24. Considering the above, this Court does not find any merit in

Page No.# 10/11
the instant appeal, and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.
25. This Court further directs that within six weeks from today, the
remaining compensation as awarded by the learned MACT, i.e., the
compensation determined along with the interest accorded after
deducting the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- be deposited before the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur.
26. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonitpur
shall thereupon release the said amount to the bank account of the
claimants after proper verification.
27. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- which was deposited at
the time of filing of the appeal by the Appellant Company be
refunded to the Appellant, subject to proof being placed before the
Registry of this Court that the amount so directed hereinabove had
already been deposited before the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sonitpur.
28. The records of the learned MACT be returned.
29. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
30. Pending Applications, if any, stands closed.

Page No.# 11/11
31. No costs.

JUDGE
Digitally signed by Satyam Sharma
Date: 2026.09.12 02:43:48 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant