Ramisha Khatun And 5 Ors vs Sri Manjit Das And 2 Ors

Page No. 1/12
GAHC010299882019

2026:GAU-AS:12653
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./303/2021
RAMISHA KHATUN,
W/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN AKAND OF VILL. ADURIPARA, P.S.
KASUMARA, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN 781127
2: NARJINA AHMED
D/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN AKAND OF VILL. ADURIPARA
P.S. KASUMARA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781127
3: NURTAZ BEGUM
D/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN AKAND OF VILL. ADURIPARA
P.S. KASUMARA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781127
4: ARIFA KHATUN
D/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN AKAND OF VILL. ADURIPARA
P.S. KASUMARA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781127
5: SALMA MAHFUZA
D/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN AKAND OF VILL. ADURIPARA
P.S. KASUMARA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 781127
6: SHAMIMA AFRUZ
D/O LATE ABDUL MANNAN AKAND OF VILL. ADURIPARA

Page No. 2/12
P.S. KASUMARA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN 78112
VERSUS
SRI MANJIT DAS,
S/O GOPESH CH. DAS, R/O WEST PALANGDIHATI, P.S. BARPETA, DIST.
BARPETA, ASSAM (REGISTERED OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE
TATA- STAR BUS)
2:SRI NAYAN DAS
S/O ANIL DAS
VILL. BAMUNDI
P.S. SUALKUCHI
DIST. KAMRUP(RURAL)
ASSAM.
(DRIVER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE TATA- STAR BUS)
3:THE BRANCH MANAGER
CHOLA MANDALAM M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
4TH FLOOR
OPP. S.B. DEORAH COLLEGE
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-7
DIST. KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM
(INSURER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE TATA- STAR BUS

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellants : Mr. A. Mannaf, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. K. K. Bhatta, Advocate
(for respondent No. 3)

Date of Hearing : 17.07.2026
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2026

Page No. 3/12
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard
Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance
Company.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been
preferred by the appellants/claimants impugning the judgment and award dated
15.06.2019, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barpeta, in MAC
Case No. 124/2018, whereby the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company was
directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs.8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh
Sixty Thousand) along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum to the
present appellants. The appellants are basically aggrieved with the quantum of
compensation awarded to them due to deduction of 50% from the computed
compensation on account of contributory negligence.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are
that on 02.04.2018, the husband/father of the present appellants, namely, late
Abdul Mannan Akand was proceeding towards Barpeta from Chenga on his
motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-15-E-9367. When he reached Chenga
Barbhita Para, one bus (Tata Star Bus) bearing Registration No. AS-01-FC-4588,
being driven in a rash and negligent manner, coming from the opposite
direction, hit the motorcycle from the front side. As a result of the aforesaid
accident, the husband/father of the present appellants sustained severe injuries
on his head and other parts of body. Though, the injured was immediately
rushed to Chenga B.P.H.C., however, the doctors informed that he was brought
dead to the hospital. After the accident, one police case, i.e., Tarabari P.S.Case
No. 87/2018 under Sections 279/304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, was also

Page No. 4/12
registered at Tarabari Police Station.
4. Thereafter, the present appellants being the wife/daughters of the
deceased, Abdul Mannan Akand filed an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of their
husband/father in the aforesaid motor vehicular accident. The said application
was registered as MAC Case No. 124/2018 before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Barpeta.
5. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the claim case filed
by the present appellants and the inquiry proceeded ex-parte against him.
However, the present respondent No. 3 (the Insurance Company) as well as the
driver of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying fault on their
part.
6. On the basis of pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Barpeta formulated following issues: -
“ (i) Whether the alleged motor accident had taken place on 02-04-
2018 at about 12.00 a.m. at Barvitha Para, (Chenga) under Tarabari
PS in the district Barpeta, Assam due to the rash and negligent
manner of driving on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing
Reg. No. AS-01/FC-4588(Star bus) and in consequence of that Abdul
Mannan Akand had died?
(ii) Whether the vehicle bearing regd.No. AS-01/FC-4588(Star bus)
was duly insured with the opposite party No. 3 i.e. Cholamandalam
General Insurance Company Ltd. under valid insurance policy at the
relevant time of accident?

Page No. 5/12
(iii) Whether the claimants areentitled to get compensation, if so, to
what extent and by whom payable?
(iv) To what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled to in law
and equity?”
7. The claimants examined the claimant No. 1 as the sole witness in
support of their claim and exhibited certain documents including the accident
information report, the post-mortem examination report and FIR.It also appears
that the Tribunal had also gone through the case diary of Tarabari P.S. Case No.
87/2018 as well as other documents, which includes the charge-sheet, seizure
list, sketch map etc. The insurance company did not adduce any evidence to
counter the claim of the claimants.
8. Ultimately, by the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal,
the Tribunal computed the damages sustained by the appellants on account of
death of their husband/father to the tune of Rs.17,20,000/- (Rupees Seventeen
Lakh Twenty Thousand). However, the Tribunal came to the finding that there
was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and as such, the
claimants were found to be entitled to 50% of the total compensation computed
by the Tribunal, which comes to Rs.8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Sixty
Thousand) along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
9. Mr. A. Mannaf, the learned counsel for the claimants/appellants has
submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in deducting 50% of the
total computed compensation amount on account of contributory negligence by
the deceased. He submits that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion
that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased without
there being any evidence on record to that effect from the Insurance Company

Page No. 6/12
or from the driver of the offending vehicle.
10. He submits that the law in this regard has been settled by a catena of
judgment of the Apex Court as well as by this Court that mere pleading of
contributory negligence in the written statement is not sufficient to come to the
conclusion that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased/claimant. The plea of contributory negligence has to be proved by
adducing cogent evidence in that regard by the respondents, which is not done
in this case.
11. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal took a
contradictory view in the impugned judgment wherein it observed that it is not
clear as to the manner in which the alleged accident had actually occurred.
However, at the same time, it held both the vehicles involved in the accident
equally responsible, even though there was no evidence to that effect on
record. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award is
required to be modified to the extent that the deduction of 50% of the total
computed compensation amount by the Tribunal on account of alleged
contributory negligence of the deceased should be set aside and the appellants
may be awarded the entire computed compensation amount of Rs.17,20,000/-
(Rupees Seventeen Lakh Twenty Thousand). In support of his submission, the
learned counsel for the appellants has cited following rulings: -
(i) “ New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Pazhaniammal ” reported in
“ 2012 (1) T.A.C. 816 (Ker.) ” ;
(ii)“ Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Padma and Others ” ,
reported in “(2009) 3 SCC 285”;

Page No. 7/12
Syed Sadiq and Others Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
(iii) “
Company Limited ” , reported in “ (214) 2 SCC 735” ;
(iv) “ Godavari Devi Sharma and Others Vs. United India Assurance Company
Limited and Others ” 2012 (4) GLT 516 ”
reported in “ ;
(v) “ Raba Lakshmi Debbarma and Others Vs. Nupur Deb and Another ”
reported in “ 2010 (2) GLT 93 ”
12. On the other hand, Mr. K. K. Bhatta, the learned counsel for the
respondent No. 3/Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has
rightly arrived at a conclusion that there was a contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased, Abdul Mannan Akand. He submits that the claimants by
adducing the evidence of sole witness, i.e., the claimant No. 1 have failed to
establish the fact of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending
vehicle.
13. He submits that the present appellants/claimants have also failed to
adduce charge-sheet, which was submitted in Tarabari P.S. Case No. 87/2018
against the driver of the offending Star Bus (Tata). He submits that it is only the
Tribunal after going through the case diary of the Tarabari P.S. Case No.
87/2018 came to the finding that since the damage of frontal side of the bus on
left-hand side as well as damage of front side of the motorcycle (visor,
headlight, handle, front indicator and front shock absorber) indicates that there
was a head-on collision between both the vehicles and since the accident took
place on the left side of the road, there seems to be contribution of both the
driver of the colliding vehicles and, therefore, he submits that the Tribunal was
correct in coming to the finding regarding contributory negligence on the part of

Page No. 8/12
the driver of the motorcycle also.
14. He submits that while arriving at the said conclusion, apart from the
documents exhibited by the PW-1, the Tribunal also considered the extract copy
of Tarabari G.D. Entry No. 18/15 dated 02.04.2018 as well as charge-sheet No.
100/2018, seizure list, reports of the MVI and sketch map. Hence, he submits
that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal holding that there was a
contributory negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle (the deceased) is
not without any basis and same needs no interference by this Court in exercise
of its appellate jurisdiction.He, therefore, submits that this appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
15. 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 learned counsel for both sides in support of their
respective submissions.
16. The point to be determined in the instant appeal is as to whether the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was right in attributing contributory negligence
on the part of the deceased, that is, the driver of the motorcycle bearing
registration number AS-15E-9367, and thereafter deducting 50% of the
compensation computed in this case on account of contributory negligence.
17. It appears that though the claimant No. 1 has adduced her evidence as
witness for claimants' side, she was not the eyewitness to the accident.
However, it is also pertinent to note herein that neither the Insurance Company
nor the driver of the offending vehicle, who had filed written statement in MAC
Case No. 124/2018 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, had adduced any

Page No. 9/12
evidence to counter the claim of the claimants or to prove the fact that there
was any contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
18. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the Tribunal on
the one hand has opined that it is not clear as to what exactly occasioned the
alleged accident; however, on the other hand, it assumed that the accident took
place due to contribution of both the drivers of the colliding vehicles. It appears
that the Tribunal arrived at the said finding merely because of the fact that the
MVI report suggested that front side of the motorcycle and left frontal side of
the bus got damaged in the accident.
19. This Court is unable to persuade itself to agree with the findings arrived
at by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, by which it attributed contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased, that is, the driver of the motorcycle
involved in the accident, without there being any evidence to that effect on
record.
20. It is well-settled proposition of law that to attribute contributory
negligence on the claimant's side, the insurance company or the owner and
driver of the other vehicle had to not only plead the contributory negligence, but
have also to adduce evidence to prove the same.
21. In the instant case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal failed to take into
consideration that Tarabari P.S. Case No. 87/2018 was registered under Section
279/304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending bus
bearing registration number AS-01FC-4588, and it also appears that in the said
case, charge-sheet has been laid against the driver of the offending bus. As
such, there are sufficient materials on record to come to the finding that it was

Page No. 10/12
the driver of the bus who was at fault for causing the accident in which the
husband/father of the claimants died.
22. It is also well-settled proposition of law that in a case under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, wherein the claimants have claimed compensation on
account of death of their relative on which they were dependent, the claimants
have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability
and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
23. In the instant case, materials on record including the FIR as well as
charge-sheet which was laid in Tarabari P.S. Case No. 87/2018 against the driver
of the offending bus bearing registration number AS-01FC-4588, which was
perused by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the aforesaid inquiry, are
sufficient to come to the finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the
driver of the bus bearing registration number AS-01-FC-4588. However, apart
from the fact that the front side of the motorcycle got damaged in the said
accident, there is nothing to suggest that there was contributory negligence on
the part of the driver of the motorcycle. In every accident where there is head-
on collision between two vehicles, negligence may not be attributed on the part
of the driver of both the vehicles. It depends on facts and circumstances of each
case, which has to be proved by adducing evidence. If contributory negligence
is pleaded, same has to be provedby the party who is asserting it, in absence of
which it is not open for the Tribunal to attribute contributory negligence on the
deceased.
24. In the instant case, when the Tribunal has perused the charge-sheet laid
against the driver of the offending bus, and wherein no specific indication is
there regarding any negligence on the part of the deceased who was riding the

Page No. 11/12
motorcycle, there was no basis for the Tribunal to come to a finding of
contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle/deceased.
The Tribunal has erred in assuming contributory negligence on the part of the
deceased merely because of the fact that there was head-on collision between
motorcycle and the offending bus.
25. As such, this Court is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the
Tribunal in the impugned judgment, whereby it has attributed contributory
negligence on the part of the deceased, that is, driver of the motorcycle, is
liable to be set aside to that extent, which this Court accordingly does.
26. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and
reasons stated therein, this Court is of considered opinion that there was no
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, and as such, the insurance
company is liable to pay the entire compensation amount computed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, that is, Rs. 17,20,000/- along with an interest at
the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
realization of the entire amount.
27. In view of the above, the respondent No. 3 Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the outstanding dues against the final compensation amount
computed by this Court, which is payable to the claimants, before the Registry
of this Court within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgment. In the
event of deposit of same, it shall be disbursed to the claimants after proper
verification.
28. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
29. Let the records of MAC Case No. 124/2018 be sent back to the

Page No. 12/12
concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.

Abhishe
k Prem
Digitally signed
by Abhishek Prem
Date: 2026.09.02
17:34:40 +05'30'
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant