Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs On The Death Of Sri Angshuman Borah His Legal Heir Sri Anjan Borah And Anr

1


GAHC010083202015
2026:GAU-AS:7515





IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH


MAC App. No. 949/2018

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having its registered office at
Oriental House A 25/27
Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 110002
and Regional Office
At Guwahati-7,
represented by the Regional Manager.

…..Appellant


-Versus-

1. On the death of Sri Angshuman Borah,
his legal heir Sri Anjan Borah
S/o late Nogendra Nath Borah,
R/o Purna Amolapatthy,
P.O. Golaghat, P.S.-Golaghat,
Dist.-Golaghat, State-Assam,
PIN-785621.

2. Sri Dipu Sarmah
S/o late Anil Sarmah,
R/o Old Amulapatty, Ward No. 2,
P.O.-Golaghat, P.S.-Golaghat,
District-Golaghat, Assam


……Respondent



MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 1

2

BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA


Advocate for appellant

: Ms. M. Choudhury,
Advocate
Advocate for respondent : Ms. R. Choudhury,
Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved

: 29.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment

: 25.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment

: N/A

Whether the full judgment has been
pronounced
: Yes

Judgment and Order
1. Heard Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the
claimant/respondent.
2. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,
has been filed by the appellant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against
the judgment and award, dated 30.10.2014, passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat, Assam, in MAC Case No. 73/2011.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in
brief, are that on 14.04.2011 at about 9.45pm, one Angshuman Borah
was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-05-D-5732
as pillion rider from Golaghat towards his home situated at Purana


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 2

3

Amolapatti, Golaghat. The motorcycle was driven by its owner,
namely, Dipu Sarma. However, when it reached in front of LIC Office
Golaghat, the driver of the motorcycle lost control over the same and
dashed it against an electric post in a great force resulting in the
accident in which the said Angshuman Borah sustained multiple
injuries. The injured was immediately taken to Kushal Konwar Civil
Hospital, Golaghat, where the attending doctors referred him to
Assam Medical College and Hospital, Dibrugarh, wherein he took his
treatment as indoor patient for 47 days from 15.04.2011 to
02.06.2011. As a result of the accident and the injuries sustained by
him, the said Angshuman Borah became permanently disabled and
unable to move.
4. Thereafter, the injured approached the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Golaghat by filing an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 through his brother Shri Anjan Bora, seeking
compensation for injuries sustained by him in the above-mentioned
motor vehicle incident. The said claim case was registered as MAC
Case No. 73/2011. The owner of the offending motorcycle did not
contest the case, hence, it proceeded ex-parte against him. However,
the present appellant contested the claim of the injured by filing a
written statement, wherein he took usual defences, which are
normally taken in claims cases by insurance companies.
5. Upon pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Golaghat framed the following issues.


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 3

4

i. Whether there is rash and negligent riding on the part of

owner-cum-rider of motorcycle bearing registration No.
AS-05-D-5732 that met with an accident on 14.04.2011
at 9.45 p.m. near Panch-ali (near LIC Office) of Golaghat
town under Golaghat Police Station ?
ii. Whether Shri Angshuman Borah sustained grievous
injuries as a result of such accident?
iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If
so, what is the proper quantum?
iv. Any other relief/reliefs?
6. The claimant adduced evidence of two witnesses including the
Medical Officer and also adduced certain documents. The insurance
company did not adduce any evidence. Ultimately, by the impugned
judgement and award dated 30.10.2014, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and granted
him compensation amount of Rs.26,32,000/-along with an interest at
the rate of 6% per annum.
7. It is pertinent to mention herein that after delivery of the
judgement which has been impugned in this appeal, the
claimant/injured Anshuman Bura expired on 13.12.2014.
8. Ms. M. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that during the pendency of the present appeal, the
claimant, namely, Angshuman Borah, had expired on 13.12.2014 and
thereafter, by order dated, 12.08.2016, passed in I.A. (Civil) No.


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 4

5

653/2016, the name of Angshuman Borah, who was the main
claimant in MAC Case No. 73/2011; was strike out on the basis of an
application filed by the Insurance Company/appellant. The said
application was made as the brother of the claimant, namely, Anjan
Borah, was already on record as the representative of the claimant
Angshuman Borah.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the
present respondent, namely, Anjan Borah, being the representative
of the deceased claimant, is entitled to get limited compensation, only
to the extent of the estate of the deceased claimant. However, she
submits that he would not be entitled to get compensation, computed
against the head ‘future earning’, which was assessed at Rs. 96,000/-
per annum; Rs. 1,00,000/- against the head ‘loss of amenities’, Rs.
2,00,000/- each for pain & suffering & loss of future prospect, totaling
to Rs. 26,32,000/-.
10. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that as legal representative of the deceased claimant, i.e., the present
respondent No. 1, is entitled only to get compensation against the
head “No Fault Liabilities”, i.e., to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- only. In
support of her submission, she has cited the ruling of the Apex Court
in the case of Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in
(2007) 10 SCC 643 Sarla Verma (SMT) And
as well as in the case of
Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another , reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121.


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 5

6

11. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that there

is nothing on record to show that the present respondent No. 1, who
is the sibling of the deceased claimant, was dependant on the
deceased claimant in any manner, therefore, he is not entitled to get
any compensation. In support of her submission, she has cited the
ruling of the Apex Court in the case of The New India Assurance
Company Limited Vs. Anand Pal & Others SLP (Civil) No.
reported in
7805 of 2022
12. On the other hand, Ms. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for
the respondent No. 1 has submitted that in the MAC Case No.
73/2011, filed by the deceased claimant Angshuman Borah, the
present respondent No. 1 had represented the deceased claimant
Angshuman Borah before the Tribunal, as he was unable to move due
to the injuries sustained by him in the accident.
13. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has further
submitted that since the claimant had only expired after passing of
the impugned Judgment and Award, the said Award has become an
asset, capable of being realized by the legal heirs, on whom the
estate has devolved.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has also submitted
that in the instant case, it is not the case that the present respondent
is himself claiming the compensation in his own right as claimant,
rather he has been there as a representative of the deceased claimant
when he was alive. She submits that after the death of the original


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 6

7

claimant, he ought to have been substituted as the legal heir of the
claimant. However, instead of filing an application for substitution of
the deceased claimant on his death on 13.12.2014, the Insurance
Company filed an interlocutory application, being I.A. (Civil) No.
653/2016, for striking out the name of the respondent No. 1, who
was the main claimant and to whom, the compensation was awarded
by the impugned judgment and award, which is under challenge in
this MAC Appeal.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submits
that as the present respondent No. 1 is claiming the compensation
awarded to the deceased claimant as his legal heir, he is entitled to
inherit the entire award, as it has become estate of the deceased. In
support of her submission, Ms. R. Choudhury has cited a ruling of the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the case of New India Assurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Jai Singh, reported in (2007) 0 Supreme (MP) 1058.
16. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 also submits that
on technical grounds, this appeal is not maintainable, as there is no
order regarding substitution of the legal heirs of the deceased
claimant in this case, though, she submits that the present
respondent No. 1 is the sole legal heir of the deceased respondent.
In support of her submission, Ms. R. Choudhury has cited a ruling of
Gujrat State Road Transport Corporation,
the Apex Court in the case of
Ahmadabad Vs. Ramanbhat Prabhatbhai and Another, reported in
(1987) 3 SCC 234 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Birender and Ors., reported in (2020) 11 SCC 356.


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 7

8

17. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel

for both sides and have also gone through the materials available on
record. I have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned
counsel for both the parties, in support of their respective
submissions.
18. On perusal of the case record, it appears that the impugned
judgement by which the compensation amount of Rs.26,32,000/- was
awarded to the claimant/injured Angshuman Borah was passed on
30.10.2014, whereas the said claimant/injured had expired on
13.12.2014.
19. It also appears that the present appeal has been filed by the
insurance company on 23.03.2015, i.e., much after the expiry of the
original claimant/injured Angshuman Bora. However, instead of filing
the appeal against the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, the
appeal was filed against the dead person i.e., the deceased claimant
and his brother, namely, Anjan Borah, who had represented the
claimant before the Tribunal due to incapability of the injured claimant
in movement.
20. It also appears that the Interlocutory Application (Civil) No.
653/2016 was filed by the insurance company praying for striking out
of the name of the injured Angshuman Bora, which was allowed by
this Court by its order dated 12.08.2016. Though, the appropriate
course would have been of issuing notice against the legal
representative of deceased claimant and thereafter, to pursue the


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 8

9

appeal against the legal representative of the deceased claimant.
However, it appears that the appellant has accepted the fact that Shri
Anjan Bora, who is the brother of the deceased claimant and who
represented the claimant before the Tribunal is the legal
representative of the deceased claimant.
21. This Court agrees with the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the claimant/respondent that as the award in favour of
the claimant i.e. late Angshuman Borah was passed prior to his death
by the Tribunal, hence, on the date of award the claimant becomes
the award holder and the amount of money directed to be paid to
him becomes his asset and on his death such assets devolves on his
legal heirs as his estate.
22. It is pertinent to note that in the instant case the compensation
amount of Rs. 26,32,000/- has been awarded not to the brother of
the deceased claimant but to the injured claimant, namely,
Angshuman Borah only. However, on his death the said amount,
which has been crystallized as assets of the deceased which he leaves
behind after his death will devolve upon his legal heirs. As such, the
amount of compensation awarded to the deceased claimant Sri
Angshuman Borah by the impugned judgment and award is to be
disbursed to his legal heirs namely, Sri Anjan Borah by the insurance
company.
23. The objection raised by the learned counsel for the appellant
regarding loss of earning capacity assessed by the Tribunal at 80%.


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 9

10

Though, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in
the cross examination, the claimant has admitted that though he
cannot move and use his right hand he can do computer work by his
left hand. However, the Tribunal has correctly relied on the testimony
of doctor who was examined as CW-2 and who was a Member of
District Medical Board, who examined the claimant after his accident
and who has categorically deposed that the loss of earning capacity
of the injured is 80% due to hemiplegia of both upper and lower
limbs.
24. Apart from taking into consideration the testimony of CW-2
(doctor), the Tribunal also took into consideration that the injured
claimant was a Hardware Computer Engineer and his work required
use of both hands. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the
Tribunal while assessing the loss of earning capacity at 80% has not
committed any error and the said assessment has not been done
arbitrarily but on the basis of materials on record.
25. For the discussion made in the foregoing paragraphs and
reasons stated therein, this Court does not find any merit in the
instant appeal.
26. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed.




MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 10

11


27. Let the records of concerned motor accident claims case be sent
back to the Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.


JUDGE
Comparing Assistant

Amita
Sharma
Digitally signed
by Amita Sharma
Date: 2026.05.30
14:47:54 +05'30'


MAC App. No. 949/2018 Page 11