New India Assurance Company Ltd vs Mrs Hirumoni Chetia And 3 Ors

Page No. 1/10
GAHC010039852019

2026:GAU-AS:12884
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./569/2022
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI- 400001 AND
ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH,
GUWAHATI- 781005 AND VARIOUS DIVISIONAL BRANCH AND MICRO
OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
VERSUS
1. MRS HIRUMONI CHETIA
W/O- LATE KHIROD CHETIA.
2:SRI RITUPARNA CHETIA
S/O- LATE KHIROD CHETIA
3:SRI JITU CHETIA
S/O- LATE KHIROD CHETIA

ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL.- PANIMUDI GAON
TAMULIKHAT
P.O. AND P.S. TENGAKHAT
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM, PIN- 786103.
(OPPOSITE PARTIES NO. 2 AND 3 WILL BE REP. BY OPPOSITE PARTY NO.
1).
4:SRI BHAKTI NATH GOGOI
S/O- SRI DULAL GOGOI
R/O- DEOGHARIA VILLAGE
TENGAKHAT
P.O. LENGRAI

Page No. 2/10
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786103.
(OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-06/G-5794)
Linked Case : CO/52/2022
1. HIRUMONI CHETIA
W/O- LATE KHIROD CHETIA
VILL.- PANIMUDI GAON
TAMULIKHAT
P.O.- TENGAKHAT
P.S. TENGAKHAT
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786103.
2: JITU CHETIA
S/O- LATE KHIROD CHETIA
VILL.- PANIMUDI GAON
TAMULIKHAT
P.O.- TENGAKHAT
P.S. TENGAKHAT
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786103.
VERSUS
1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
BUILDING 87
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD
FORT
MUMBAI- 400001 AND ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI- 781005 AND VARIOUS DIVISIONAL BRANCH AND MICRO
OFFICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
2:BHAKTI NATH GOGOI
S/O- DULAL GOGOI
R/O- DEOGHARIA VILLAGE
TENGAKHAT
P.O. LENGRAI

Page No. 3/10
DIST.- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN- 786103.


BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellant : Mr. A. J. Saikia, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. B. Baruah, Advocate
(For respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in MAC
Appeal No. 569/2022 & Cross-objector in
CO No. 52/2022)

Date of Hearing : 20.08.2026
Date of Judgment : 07.09.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. A. J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard
Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as
Cross-objector in C.O. No. 52/2022.
2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of the MAC
Appeal No. 569/2022 as well as CO No. 52/2022 as both arise out of the
common judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Dibrugarh, in MAC Case No. 97/2013. In the MAC Appeal No. 569/2022, the
appellant Insurance Company has impugned the aforesaid aforementioned
judgment and award, which has also been impugned in the CO No. 52/2022.
Both the Insurance Company as well as cross-objector are aggrieved with the
quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal. The

Page No. 4/10
Insurance Company’s plea is that the quantum is on the higher side, whereas,
the claimants’ plea is that the quantum of compensation awarded to the
claimants is on lower side.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal as well as
cross-objection, in brief, are that on 17.09.2013 at about 6:30 PM, one Khirod
Chetia was proceeding from Lengrai side towards his home at Panimudoi Gaon,
on foot. He was walking on the left side of the Tingrai Tengakhat PWD Road. At
that time, one motorcycle bearing Registration No. AS-06-G-5794, approaching
from the same direction and being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner, hit said Khirod Chetia from behind with a great force, as a result of
which he sustained serious injuries on his person. The injured was immediately
taken to Tengakhat PHC for medical treatment and from there, he was shifted to
Brahmaputra Diagnostic and Hospitals, Dibrugarh. However, on 19.09.2013,
Khirod Chetia succumbed to his injuries.
4. After death of Khirod Chetia, his wife and two sons approached the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, by filing an application under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of
their husband/father. The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No.
97/2013. The Insurance Company as well as the owner and driver of the
offending motorcycle appeared before the Tribunal and contested the claim of
the claimants by filing written statements.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal framed following issues in the aforesaid claim case: -
“ (i) Whether the Opposite party No. 1 can be held responsible for the

Page No. 5/10
negligent act?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to receive the compensation
amount and if so, from whom the same is recoverable?
(iii) Whether the victim died due to injuries sustained in the accident?”
6. The claimants' side examined three witnesses, namely, Ms. Hirumoni
Chetia (CW-1), Sri Babul Baruah (CW-2) and one Sri Rubul Bora (CW-3). The
present appellant and the other opposite parties did not adduce any evidence to
counter the claim of the claimants.
7. Ultimately, by judgment and award dated 07.08.2016, passed in MAC
Case No. 97/2013, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation
amount of Rs.38,15,068/- (Rupees Thirty Eight Lakh Fifteen Thousand Sixty-
Eight only) to the claimants along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
The said judgment and award has been impugned by both the parties in the
instant appeal as well as cross-objection.
8. Mr. A. J. Saikia, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh, while awarding the
compensation to the claimants has erred in assessing the age of the decease as
45 years at the time of his death, merely on the basis of entry made in the post-
mortem examination report. He submits that the age mentioned in the post-
mortem examination report is only on the basis of rough estimation made by
the doctors conducting the post-mortem examination report. He submits that
the Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the age mentioned in the
official document, which is exhibited by the claimants themselves as Exhibit-9.
He submits that Exhibit-9 nine is the certificate issued by the officials of Oil

Page No. 6/10
India Limited, where the deceased was employed and as per the said exhibit,
the date of birth of the deceased, Khirod Chetia, was 31.07.1960 and as such,
on the date of the accident, the age of the deceased was about 53 years, 1
month, 18 days. He submits that consequently, the Tribunal also erred in
choosing a higher multiplier of 13 taking the age of the deceased as45 years.
He submits that considering the date of birth mentioned in Exhibit-9, the age of
the deceased is approximately 53 years and as such, the correct multiplier to be
applied in this case for assessing the loss of dependency would be 11 as per
Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680
” reported in “ ” .
9. He further submits that as the deceased was more than 50 years of
age at the time of his death, the addition against future prospects shall have to
be to the extent of 15%. He submits that the Tribunal has erred in adding 30%
of the actual salary towards future prospects. He further submits that while
assessing the monthly income of the deceased, the deductions which are not
the part of regular monthly salary has been correctly not taken into
consideration by the Tribunal. However, he fairly submits that some of the
deductions which are not statutory deduction may have to be taken into
consideration while assessing the income of the deceased.
10. On the other hand, Mr. B. Baruah, the learned counsel for the cross-
objector/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the age
of the deceased at 45 years on the basis of endorsement stated in the post-
mortem examination report. He, however, submits that the Tribunal was wrong
in assessing the income of the deceased at only Rs. 27,812/-, whereas the gross
salary earned by the deceased according to the salary certificate issued by his

Page No. 7/10
employer was Rs. 1,91,253/- and the Tribunal has erroneously deducted the
amount of leave encashment of Rs. 78,743/- from the said amount, as well as
other deductions amounting to Rs. 89,698/- therefrom.
11. He submits that allowances which were paid to the deceased by his
employer was the part of his regular salary and as such, same ought not to
have been deducted at the time of assessing the monthly income of the
deceased. He submits that by reassessing the monthly income of the deceased
by including the allowances therein, an enhanced compensation may be
awarded to the claimants. The learned counsel for the cross-objector has cited a
National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
ruling of the Apex Court in the case of
Indira Srivastava and Others, reported in “ (2008) 1 TAC 717 (SC)” in support of
his submissions.
12. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the materials on record. I have also gone through
the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their
respective submissions.
13. Since both the appeal as well as the cross-objection are directed towards
the quantum of the compensation awarded to the claimants, I will confine
myself to the discussion related to the said issue only. Accordingly, the point to
be determined in the cross-objection as well as the appeal is as to whether the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh was right in computing the quantum
of compensation awarded to the claimants after considering his right age, taking
the correct multiplier, and assessing the correct monthly income of the
deceased.

Page No. 8/10
14. When we peruse the records, it appears that the claimant has exhibited
the post-mortem report of the deceased as Exhibit-4, wherein his age has been
mentioned as 45 years. It is pertinent to mention herein that in the service
particulars issued by the employer of the deceased, which has been exhibited as
Exhibit-9, the date of birth of the deceased has been shown as 31.07.1960.
However, it is pertinent to note herein that the claimant No. 1 has exhibited the
driving license of the deceased as Exhibit-8 in order to prove the date of birth of
the deceased. In the said driving license, instead of date of birth, the year of
birth has been mentioned as 1963.
15. Thus, it appears that the claimants' side have themselves exhibited three
different documents suggesting three different ages of the deceased at the time
of his death. Under such circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that
Exhibit-9, which is the certificate issued by officials of Oil India Limited where
the deceased was employed, and which mentions a specific date of birth, that is
31.07.1960, may be regarded as the best evidence produced by the claimants to
substantiate the age of the deceased at the time of his death. As such, taking
into consideration the date of birth of the deceased mentioned in Exhibit-9, his
age at the time of death is taken to be as 53 years. Consequently, in pursuant
to the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) ,
the multiplier to be taken for assessing the loss of dependency would be 11
instead of 13 as taken by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
16. As regards the income of the deceased is concerned, it appears that the
Tribunal had erred in deducting certain allowances from the net salary of the
deceased while assessing his monthly earnings. This Court is of considered
opinion that the amount received by the deceased on account of leave

Page No. 9/10
encashment, that is Rs. 78,743/-, has to be deducted from his monthly salary as
such leave encashment is not a regular feature in the monthly salary of an
employee, in addition to that, the deduction towards professional tax of Rs.
208/- and income tax of Rs. 39,464/- has also to be made while assessing the
monthly income of the deceased. Other deductions are not to be made while
assessing the monthly income of the deceased. As such, by deducting the
amount received by the deceased on account of leave encashment and the
deduction made towards professional tax and income tax, the net salary of the
deceased comes to be: [Rs.1,91,253/- – Rs.78,743/- – Rs.208/- – Rs.39,464/- =
Rs.72,838/-].
17. As the deceased was more than 50 years of age at the time of his death,
an addition of 15% of the total earnings of the deceased is to be added towards
future prospects to assess his monthly income. As such, after adding 15% of Rs.
72,838/- with the same, the monthly earning of the deceased is assessed at:
[Rs. 72,838/- + Rs. 10,925/- = Rs. 83,763/-].
rd
18. Since the deceased was having three dependents, 1/3 of the said
amount has to be deducted towards his living and personal expenses.
Accordingly, after doing so, the monthly earning of the deceased comes at:
Rs.83,763/- – Rs.27,921/- = Rs.55,842/-.
19. Accordingly, the loss of dependency of the claimants comes at:Rs.
55,842/- × 12 × 11 = Rs.73,71,144/-
20. To the above amount an amount of Rs.40,000/- has to be added
towards loss of spousal consortium for claimant No. 1; an amount of
Rs.80,000/- to be added towards loss of parental consortium for claimant Nos. 2

Page No. 10/10
and 3; the expenses incurred in funeral of the deceased = Rs. 15,000/-; Total:
Rs. 75,06,144/-.
21. Thus, a compensation amount of Rs. 75,06,144/- is payable to the
claimants along with an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization. The appellant insurance company shall
deposit the remaining outstanding due towards the aforesaid compensation
awarded to the claimants before the Registry of this Court within a period of six
weeks from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, same shall be disbursed
to the claimants after proper verification.
22. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- shall be returned to the
appellant/Insurance company.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the appeals as well as cross-
objection are partially allowed.
24. Let the records of MAC Case No. 97/2013 be sent back to the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Dibrugarh along with a copy of this judgment.


Abhish
ek Prem
Digitally signed
by Abhishek Prem
Date: 2026.09.07
15:07:02 +05'30'

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant