Smti. Rebon Kalita And 2 Ors vs Sri Sanjiv Kumar Soni And Anr

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010199872019

2026:GAU-AS:14170
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./550/2019
SMTI. REBON KALITA AND 2 ORS
W/O LT. MOHAN KALITA, PERMANENT R/O VILL. RANGATI, P.O.
PATHALIPAHAR, P.S. BIHPURIA, DIST. LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784163
AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O PRABIN DAS, R/O HOUSE NO. 12,
SANTIPUR HILL SIDE (NEAR PRAGATI SANGHA), P.O. AND P.S.
BHARALUMUKH, GUWAHATI-781009, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
2: NIJARA KALITA
D/O LT. MOHAN KALITA
PERMANENT R/O VILL. RANGATI
P.O. PATHALIPAHAR
P.S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784163 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O PRABIN DAS
R/O HOUSE NO. 12
SANTIPUR HILL SIDE (NEAR PRAGATI SANGHA)
P.O. AND P.S. BHARALUMUKH
GUWAHATI-781009
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3: DIGEN KALITA
S/O LT. MOHAN KALITA
PERMANENT R/O VILL. RANGATI
P.O. PATHALIPAHAR
P.S. BIHPURIA
DIST. LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784163 AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT C/O PRABIN DAS
R/O HOUSE NO. 12
SANTIPUR HILL SIDE (NEAR PRAGATI SANGHA)
P.O. AND P.S. BHARALUMUKH
GUWAHATI-781009

Page No.# 2/14
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
VERSUS
SRI SANJIV KUMAR SONI AND ANR
S/O MR. BHULAN SONI, R/O VILL. MARBILL, P.S. LALUK, DIST.
LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM(OWNER OF THE OFFENDING VEHICLE BEARING
NO. AS-07-C-5046 TANKER)
2:THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
REGIONAL OFFICE ABC
OPP. RAJIB BHAWAN
G.S. ROAD
GUWAHATI-5
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR S CHAKRABORTY, MR. R SARKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. K K BHATTA, MR. K K DEKA,MR. S DEKA

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER
Advocates:
For the Appellants : Mr. S. Chakraborty
For the Respondents : Mr. K.K. Bhatta
Date of hearing and judgment : 23.09.2026
:JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL):
1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the Appellants/Claimants praying for enhancement of the
compensation in judgment and award dated 22.05.2019 passed by the Motor

Page No.# 3/14
Accident Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in MAC Case No.
2024/2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Appellants, Mr. S. Chakraborty; also heard
learned counsel, Mr. K.K. Bhatta, for the Respondent/Insurance Company.
3. The facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that on
04.01.2015 the deceased, who was the eldest son of the Claimant No. 1 and the
brother of the Claimant Nos. 2 and 3, while travelling from his house towards
Banderdewa, riding on his own motorcycle met with an accident when an oil
tanker that was travelling in the same direction and was being driven in a rash
and negligent manner hit the motorcycle being driven by the deceased from
behind. The tanker knocked down the motorcycle of the deceased and
thereafter, the offending vehicle ran over the deceased who had fallen on the
road which resulted in the death of the deceased on the spot.
4. The case of the Appellant is that at the time of the accident, the oil tanker
was duly insured with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and the insurance
policy was valid up to 25.10.2015. The offending vehicle was driven by a driver
who had a valid driving licence. The deceased, at the time of his death was 48
years old, unmarried and earned his livelihood by running a dairy farm with 4
[four] Jersey cows and a small tea garden spread over an area covering 5
Bighas. The deceased was also working as Head Clerk at the Banderdewa Junior
College from which he used to receive financial assistance from the
Government. It was contended by the Claimants that the deceased used to earn
a monthly income of Rs. 20,000/-.
5. The Appellant/Claimants accordingly filed a claim petition which was

Page No.# 4/14
registered as MAC Case No. 2024/2015 before the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
6. The Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing their written
statements wherein they denied all the averments made in the claim petition.
However, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not adduce any evidence before the
Tribunal.
7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and
award dated 22.05.2019 deciding all the issues in favour of the
Claimants/Appellants and awarded compensation of Rs. 6,63,750/-.
8. Being aggrieved, and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
22.05.2019 passed in MAC Case no. 2024/2015, the Appellant/Claimants have
preferred the instant appeal on the following grounds:-
i. That the Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence
adduced by PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4 in their proper perspective. The PWs-1, 2, 3
and 4 had categorically deposed that the monthly income of the deceased
was Rs. 20,000/-; however, the learned Tribunal has disregarded the said
evidence without assigning any reason.
ii.
The learned Tribunal had also committed an error by not awarding any
filial consortium to the Appellant No. 1/mother of the deceased; whereas
the law mandates that filial consortium is to be awarded to a claimant for
the death of a child.
iii. The Tribunal clearly committed an error in deducting 50% for personal

Page No.# 5/14
expenses whereas the correct deduction should have been one-third in
view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company
Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680].
iv. The Tribunal erroneously held that the evidence of the claimant was
adduced by the Claimants only on 20.12.2018 and, as such, the Insurance
Company was directed to pay the interest only from 20.11.2018 and not
from the date of filing the claim petition. Moreover, the rate of interest
was also not indicated by the learned Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel for the Appellants in support of his submissions has relied
on the case of:
i. National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors.
[(2017) 16 SCC 680] ;
ii. Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.
[2025 SCC OnLine SC 3468] ; and
iii.
Chandra Alias Chanda Alias Chandraram & Anr. [(2022) 1 SCC
198] .
10. The learned counsel for the Appellants, in view of the above submissions
and in view of the principle laid down in the cases cited above, prays that the
monthly income of the deceased should be taken as Rs. 20,000/- per month and
the filial consortium has to be awarded to the Claimant no.1/Appellant No. 1,
who is the mother of the deceased and further prays that this Court may award
a suitable rate of interest on the awarded amount which should be paid from

Page No.# 6/14
the date of filing the claim petition as the delay was not attributable to the
Appellants but due to the dates fixed by the Tribunal wherein the case was
being listed only after 2 or 3 months and such a plea of delay by claimants was
never raised by the Respondents at any point of time. He, therefore, prays that
the impugned judgment may be modified suitably by this Court in order to
award just and fair compensation to the Claimants/Appellants.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Insurance Company, Mr. K.K.
Bhatta, opposing the contentions of the Appellants, submits that the learned
Tribunal has not committed any error in calculating the compensation awarded
inasmuch as the Claimants have not been able to produce any documentary
evidence with regard to the income of the deceased. Even though the Claimants
contended that the deceased had a dairy farm and a tea garden, they had never
produced any registration regarding the dairy farm, or any document regarding
the ownership of a tea garden. In the absence of such documentary evidence,
the Tribunal has rightly calculated the income of the deceased on the basis of
minimum wages and the same does not require any interference by this Court.
12. To support his submissions, the learned counsel for the
Respondent/Insurance Company relies on the following cases:
i. Ponnumany Alias Krishnan & Anr. v. V.A. Mohanan & Ors.
[2008 (4) SCC 717] ,
ii. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Yogesh Devi & Ors. [2012
(2) SCC 613] , and
iii. Kirti & Anr. etc. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2021

Page No.# 7/14
(2) SCC 166] .
13. By relying on the aforementioned cases, the learned counsel submits that
even in the event of the demise of the deceased, there is no loss of income for
the Claimants/Appellants inasmuch as the dairy farm and the tea garden are still
in existence and the Claimants can easily engage some competent person to
manage the assets. Therefore, the Tribunal could not have taken the entire
amount of Rs. 20,000/- as projected by the Claimants as monthly income for
calculation of loss of dependency. Learned counsel further submits that in the
case of Kirti & Anr. (Supra) the Supreme Court held that when the Claimants are
unable to produce any document to prove the income, the Tribunal can at the
very least take the minimum wage, which is applicable to skilled workers during
the relevant point of time. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the
Tribunal has rightly taken Rs. 6,500/- as the monthly income of the deceased.
14. This Court has duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
the parties and perused the Trial Court Records as well as the judgments relied
upon.
15. In a motor accident claim, the absence of documentary proof of income
does not automatically mean that the testimony regarding income must be
rejected. The Tribunal has to assess the oral evidence along with the nature of
occupation, status of the deceased, surrounding circumstances and the
credibility of the witnesses. The Supreme Court in the case of Sebati Nath & Ors
(Supra) has accepted that income can be determined on the basis of the
evidence on record and the Court held that in the absence of documentary
evidence on record, some guesswork is required to be done. Even where there

Page No.# 8/14
is no salary certificate or other formal documentary proof, the Tribunal can
assess the income on the basis of the evidence before it.
16. It is settled law that in compensation cases, the strict rules of evidence
applicable in criminal trials do not apply and the standard of proof is based on
preponderance of probability. In the aforementioned case of Sebati Nath & Ors
(Supra) the deceased was the owner of a fish farm and the manager of the fish
farm owned by the deceased had deposed that the deceased used to earn Rs.
15,000/- per month from the sale of fish. In such circumstances the Supreme
Court held that the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed @ Rs.
15,000/- per month. Similarly, in the instant case, the PW-1 who is the younger
brother of the deceased deposed that at the time of his death the deceased was
running a dairy farm and a small tea garden spread over 5 Bighas, and in
addition thereto, he was working as a Head Clerk of Banderdewa Junior College
for at least 15 years and was receiving some financial assistance from the
Government. He deposed that the deceased was getting a monthly income of
Rs. 20,000/- per month. In his cross-examination PW-1 reiterated that the
deceased was a bachelor and he owned a dairy farm and a small tea garden in
the land of their father. In the said cross-examination by the Insurance
Company nothing could be elicited to rebut the deposition that the deceased
was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.
17. PW-2 is the sister of the deceased. PW-2 also deposed that the deceased
was running a dairy farm and a small tea garden and was also working as a
Head Clerk at Banderdewa Junior College for 15 years and that his monthly
income was Rs. 20,000/- per month. On being cross-examined by the Opposite
Party No. 3/Insurance Company, the Insurance Company could not rebut the

Page No.# 9/14
deposition of the PW-2 that the income of the deceased was Rs. 20,000/- per
month. In fact, there was no suggestion even from the Insurance Company
regarding the income of the deceased.
18. PW-3 was a Veterinary Doctor, who deposed that the deceased owned a
dairy farm comprising of 4 [four] Jersey cows in his own household complex
which had started around 2004. He deposed that the monthly income of the
deceased would have been around Rs. 20,000/- after deducting all the
expenses. PW-3 also deposed that the deceased owned a small tea garden
spread around 5 Bighas of land. The PW-3 further exhibited a certificate as
Exhibit-9 wherein he categorically stated that the deceased was engaged in
dairy farming entrepreneurship since 2004 with 4 jersey cows and sold his milk
in the Banderdewa hotels and to some other milk consumers regularly, through
which he was maintaining his family. It further certified that the deceased was
very sincere and dedicated to his job and the PW-3 used to offer technical
support to the deceased from time to time so that he could produce more milk
as well as to encourage other educated youth of the village for dairy farming. In
the cross-examination by the Insurance Company PW-3 denied the suggestion
that the deceased did not own a home dairy farm or a small tea garden.
19. PW-4 is one of the members of the Kherajghat Anchalik Small Tea Growers
Association. PW-4 also deposed that the deceased owned a small tea garden
comprising of an area of 5 Bighas of land which started around 2008. He
deposed that the gross income of the deceased from the tea garden was around
Rs. 10,000/- per month; that the deceased was the only bread-earner of the
family, and that he was a member of the Kherajghat Anchalik Small Tea Growers
Association. In his cross-examination PW-4 also denied the suggestion that he

Page No.# 10/14
was deposing falsely and denied that the deceased did not own a dairy farm or
a small tea garden.
20. In the case of Chandra @Chanda (Supra) the Supreme Court further held
that merely because the Claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence
to show the monthly income of the deceased, the same does not justify
adoption of the lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. It
was held that there is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the witnesses.
From the analysis of the above evidence adduced by the Claimants/Appellants,
which is not rebutted by the Respondent/Insurance Company and relying on the
principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited cases, this Court is
of the view that the learned Tribunal could not have totally discarded the un-
rebutted evidence of the PWs-1, 2, 3 and 4. It is accordingly held that the
Tribunal should have considered the oral evidence in its right perspective and
should have at least held the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 15,000/-
per month as it is proved by the oral evidence that the deceased had a dairy
farm in his house with 4 cows and was selling the milk produced from the 4
cows and further he had some income from the tea garden also.
21. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the deceased and the
multiplier adopted by the Tribunal. However, with regard to the deduction
towards personal expenses, the appellant by relying on the case of Pranay Sethi
(Supra), has argued that for determination of the multiplier and the deduction
for personal and living expenses, the Tribunal and the courts should be guided
by paragraph 32 of Sarla Verma v. DTC [(2009) 6 SCC 121] , wherein the
Supreme Court held as under:-

Page No.# 11/14
“32. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother
would be considered to be a dependant, and 50% would be treated as the personal and
living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However,
where the family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the deceased,
as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning
sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and
contribution to the family will be taken as two-third.”
22. The Supreme Court in the above mentioned paragraph of Sarla Verma
(Supra) held that when the deceased is survived by parents and siblings only
the mother would be considered to be a dependant and 50% would be treated
as personal and living expenses when the deceased is a bachelor. However,
when the family of the bachelor is large and dependant on the income of the
deceased as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of
younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may
be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-
third.
23. It is clear from the above principle of law laid down in the case of Sarla
Verma (Supra) that in normal circumstances when the deceased is a bachelor,
50% has to be deducted as personal and living expenses. It is only when the
family of the dependant is large and dependant on the income of the deceased,
with a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third. In the
instant case, the records show that Claimant No. 1/Appellant No. 1 is the
mother of the deceased and accordingly, can be considered as a dependant of
the deceased. Appellant No. 2 is stated to be 55 years old; she is unmarried and
was dependant on the deceased and therefore she can also be considered to be

Page No.# 12/14
a dependant. However, Appellant No. 3, who is the younger brother of the
deceased is aged 45 years and would certainly be able to earn a livelihood by
himself and would have his own income and cannot be considered to be a
dependant of the deceased.
24. In the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that the family of the
bachelor is large with a large number of younger non-earning sisters or
brothers. It is only the mother and the sister of the deceased who are the
dependants. Therefore, the observation in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) at
paragraph 32 is not applicable here. This Court does not interfere with the
finding of the Tribunal in deducting 50% towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased.
25. As far as the award of filial consortium is concerned, the mother of the
deceased is certainly entitled to filial consortium of Rs. 40,000/- as held down in
the case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram [(2018) 18 SCC
130] and also reiterated in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Satinder Kaur Alias Satwinder Kaur [(2021) 11 SCC 780]. An amount of Rs.
40,000/- is therefore added to the awarded amount as filial consortium in
respect of the Claimant No. 1/Appellant No. 1. An addition of 25% towards
future prospect is also added as the deceased was below the age of 50 years.
26. In view of the above findings and discussions, the impugned judgment
and award dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati in MAC Case no. 2024/2015 is set
aside.
27. The just and reasonable compensation which the Claimants are entitled to

Page No.# 13/14
is re-assessed as under:
Sl.
No.
HEADS CALCULATION
1. Income Rs. 15,000/- per month
2. 25% of Rs. 15,000/- , i.e.
Rs. 3,750/-, to be added as
future prospect
Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 3,750 = Rs.
18,750/-
3. 50% (50% of Rs. 18,750/-
= Rs. 9,375/-) deducted as
personal expenses of the
deceased
Monthly contribution to family= Rs.
9,375/-
Annual loss of dependency=
Rs. 9,375 x 12= Rs.1,12,500/-
4. Loss of dependency after
multiplier of 13 is added
Rs.1,12,500/- x 13 = Rs.14,62,500/-
5. Filial consortium for the
Claimant/Appellant 1
Rs. 40,000/-
6. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
7. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
8. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs. 15,32,500/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs
Thirty-two thousand Five hundred
only).
28. The respondent/New India Assurance Co. Ltd shall deposit the awarded
amount of Rs. 15,32,500/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs Thirty-two thousand Five

Page No.# 14/14
hundred only), before the Registry of this Court after deducting the amount of
Rs. 6,63,750/-, which has already been deposited earlier before the Registry of
this Court, within 6 [six] weeks from the date of this judgment. Further, the
total compensation shall be deposited with an interest of 7 % from the date of
filing the claim petition till realisation.
29. Thereafter, the Claimant Nos. 1 and 2/ Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 shall be
allowed to withdraw the deposited amount upon proper identification and
verification.
30. With the above directions and modifications, the appeal stands disposed
of. The Registry shall return the Trial Court Records.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant