Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Begum Jyotshna Hoque And 5 Ors. B

Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010022232022

2026:GAU-AS:13867
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./75/2022
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND
HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND ONE OF ITS
BRANCH OFFICE AT PRAG PLAZA, 5TH FLOOR, BHANGAGARH,
GUWAHATI 781005
VERSUS
BEGUM JYOTSHNA HOQUE AND 5 ORS. B
W/O MD.SHAH ALAM HAQUE (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED)
RESIDENT OF DERGAON TOWN, WARD NO. IV. PO DERGAON, PS
DERGAON, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM, 785703
2:MD. SHAH ALAM HOQUE
(FATHER OF THE DECEASED)
RESIDENT OF DERGAON TOWN
WARD NO. IV. PO DERGAON
PS DERGAON
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
785703
3:MD. TAUFIC ALAM HOQUE
(BROTHER OF THE DECEASED)
RESIDENT OF DERGAON TOWN
WARD NO. IV. PO DERGAON
PS DERGAON
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
785703
4:MD. FARZOOL ALAM HOQUE

Page No.# 2/14
(BROTHER OF THE DECEASED)
RESIDENT OF DERGAON TOWN
WARD NO. IV. PO DERGAON
PS DERGAON
DIST GOLAGHAT
ASSAM
78570
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T KALITA, MR. A KAKATI
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M DUTTA, MR K M BORA,MR. A BHATTACHARYYA

BEFORE :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

Advocates for the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. Kalita

Advocate for the Respondent(s)/ : Mr. K. Dutta for R/1-4
Cross Objectors
Date on which judgment is reserved : 15.09.2026

Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.09.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of
the operative part of the judgment? : Full judgment.

Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act’ 1988 has
been preferred by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited challenging

Page No.# 3/14
the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned MACT,
Golaghat in MAC Case No. 25/2014.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. T. Kalita, for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.
Dutta, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents/cross objectors.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal in brief is that the
claimant/respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had filed the MAC Case No. 25/2014
claiming compensation for the death of their son/brother in a motor vehicle
accident on 30.09.2013 near the Universal Oil Depot on National Highway 37
under Dergaon Police Station in which the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-
01/D-7377/Oil Tanker was involved.
4. It was the case of the claimant/respondents that the deceased Samadul

Alam Hoque was proceeding from Dergaon Chariali towards Jorhat riding his
friend’s motor cycle bearing registration No. AS03/F-9108 with proper care and
caution on his own side when the driver of the vehicle/Oil Tanker came from the
opposite direction and knocked down the motor cycle being driven by the
deceased.
5. Upon hearing the parties, the MAC Case No. 25/2014 was disposed of by
the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2021 and total compensation of Rs.
21,27,792/- was awarded to the claimant/respondents along with interest @ 6%
p.a from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2021, the
insurer/appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the
learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident took place between two

Page No.# 4/14
moving vehicles coming from opposite directions and that the evidence of one
Sharif Uddin Ahmed/CW-2 was recorded as an eye witness. CW-2 claimed to
have seen the oil tanker vehicle coming in a rash and negligent manner and at
very high speed, therefore, it was natural as a prudent man for the deceased to
have taken due care and precaution to avoid collision when he had already seen
the vehicle coming from a distance from the opposite direction at high speed.
Learned counsel submits that from the said evidence of CW-2 it is understood
that the accident was a case of head on collision between two vehicles and as
such, the learned tribunal could not have settled the entire liability upon the
appellant being the insurer of the oil tanker bearing No. NL-01/D-7377, but
ought to have apportioned the liability between both the vehicles in the ratio of
50:50.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the learned tribunal ought to have
appreciated the fact that during the cross examination of CW-2 it has come to
light that there were several vehicles plying through the National Highway at the
time of the accident and as such there could hardly be any room for the vehicle
oil tanker to proceed on the wrong side. However, the learned tribunal did not
appreciate these vital aspects. It is stated that the alleged offending vehicle
being an oil tanker could not have been driven in a rash and negligent manner
as it is a heavy vehicle and rather the motor cycle being a two-wheeler had the
maximum probability of losing control and thereby causing the accident, but
such aspect was not considered by the learned tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was also

responsible for the accident as he would have seen the oil tanker coming at high
speed and should have taken proper precaution and therefore, the learned

Page No.# 5/14
tribunal should have held that there was contributory negligence on the part of
the deceased.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Kamlesh and
Ors, Vs Attar Singh and Ors . reported in (2015) 15 SCC 364 wherein two
vehicles were involved; a Maruti car and a three-wheeler tempo. The Supreme
Court held that the method and manner in which the accident took place leaves
no room for doubt that both the drivers were negligent. From the evidence, it
appeared that the driver of the tempo also could not remove his vehicle from
the way of the Maruti car when the Maruti car was coming at excessive speed.
Thus, it was held that both the drivers were clearly negligent and that it was a
case of composite negligence. Learned counsel also relies on the case of Bijoy
Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta , reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242 ,
wherein a passenger bus and a Maruti car were involved in an accident. The
evidence of one of the passengers of the Maruti car showed that the passenger
bus was coming from the opposite direction in a zig zag manner at abnormal
speed. In his evidence he deposed that as a prudent man the deceased ought
to have taken due care and precaution to avoid head on collision when he had
already seen the bus from a long distance coming from the opposite direction.
The Supreme Court held that the tribunal had rightly observed that when the
vehicles had head on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held
responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. In the light of the
aforementioned judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant prays that that
instant appeal maybe allowed and the judgment and award dated 01.11.2021 in
MAC Case No. 25/2014 may be modified as deem fit and proper.
10. After the instant appeal was filed the claimant/respondents have also filed

Page No.# 6/14
a cross objection being C.O. No. 30/2022. By filing the cross objection, the
claimants/cross objectors have categorically stated the accident took place due
to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the oil tanker
bearing registration No. NL-01/D-7377 and in connection with the said accident
the police have registered Dergaon PS Case No. 314/2013 and after completion
of investigation, the police have submitted charge sheet against the driver of
the oil tanker. By taking this Court to the evidence of Sharif Uddin Ahmed/CW-2,
leaned counsel submits that the CW-2 in his examination-in-chief stated, “I had
seen that one oil tanker bearing registration No. NL-01D/7377, stainless steel
colored body coming from Jorhat side very rashly and negligently and in a very
high speed knocked one motor cycle which was coming from Dergaon Chariali
on his own side.” In his cross examination by the insurer, the CW-1 Sharif Uddin
Ahmed deposed that “though generally oil tankers ply at a moderate speed,
however, the oil tanker in question, which caused the accident was in great
speed and was coming through the wrong side.” Learned counsel submits that
the evidence of CW-2 therefore has conclusively proved that it was the oil
tanker which was being driven rashly and negligently and which was being
driven on the wrong side and the deceased was riding on his own side.
However, the insurer has not adduced any evidence to prove the negligence of
the deceased.
11. Learned counsel submits that when a plea of contributory negligence is
taken, evidence has to be adduced to prove the same. However, the insurer has
failed to lead any evidence with regard to the said plea. It is only at the
appellate stage that the insurer has raised the issue of contributory negligence
for the first time.

Page No.# 7/14
12. The Claimants/Cross objectors have also prayed for enhancement of the
compensation. One of the grounds being that the claimants had exhibited the
Income Tax Return (ITR) for the year 2011-12 showing the annual income as
Rs. 1,51,300/- p.a (exhibit 14) and also the ITR for the year 2012-13 showing
the annual income as Rs. 1,81,700/- p.a (exhibit 15). However, the tribunal
committed an error by assessing the average income of the deceased as Rs.
1,66,500/- i.e., the average of the income of two assessment years. Whereas
the learned tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the decease as per
the latest ITR for the year 2012-13 which shows the annual income of the
deceased as Rs. 1,81,700/-.
13. The leaned MACT awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- each under the heads of
loss of estate and funeral expenses and omitted the award under filial
consortium. It is the submission of the learned counsel that in terms of the
principle of periodic enhancement recognized in the case of National
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi , (2017) 16 SCC 680 , the
awarded amount under loss of estate and funeral expenses deserved
appropriate enhancement and should have been Rs. 16,500/- under each head.
14. The learned counsel for the cross Objector/Claimant also submits that the
tribunal committed an error by awarding an interest only @ 6% pa from the
date of filing of the claim petition. By relying on the case of Supe Dei and Ors.
Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd . reported in 2002(3) TAC 378 and
Kaushnuma Begum Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2001)
2 SCC 9 submits that the Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgments had
held that 9% interest p.a is an appropriate rate of interest in motor accident
compensation cases. He therefore prays that the rate of interest may also be

Page No.# 8/14
enhanced from 6% to 9% p.a on the enhanced compensation, from the date of
filing of the claim petition till realization. With regard to the interest on future
prospects, the learned counsel for the Claimants/Cross objectors, relies on the
case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Niru and Ors, reported in (2025)
INSC 822 and the Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2026 passed by a
coordinate bench of this Court in MAC Appeal 172/2021 wherein the judgment
in the case of Niru and Ors. (supra) was relied upon. In these judgments it was
held that interest on future prospects has to be granted.
15. In view of the submission made hereinabove and the Judgments relied
upon, the learned counsel for the claimant/cross objectors prays that the instant
MAC Appeal may be dismissed and the cross objection No. 30/2022 may be
allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded in MAC Case No. 25/2014
thereby reassessing the income and awarding filial consortium and appropriate
amount under the conventional heads and further enhance the rate of interest
to 9% p.a from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
16. Learned counsel for the claimant Cross Objector has relied on the case of,
i) Jiju Kuruvila and Ors. Vs. Kunjujamma Mohan and Ors. reported in
(2013) 9 SCC 166 and ii) Rashmirekha Tripathy and Ors. Vs. Branch

Manager (Legal Claims), Sriram General Insurance Company limited
and Ors. reported in (2026) INSC 661.
17. I have duly considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the
parties and have gone through the Trial Court Records. I have also examined
the judgment cited by the parties in support of their respective submissions.

Page No.# 9/14
18. The two issues to be determined in this appeal are:-
i) whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Golaghat was correct in
holding that it was only the oil tanker which was negligent and was responsible
for causing the accident and that there was no contributory negligence on the
part of the deceased.
ii) whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat was correct in
computing the quantum of compensation which has been awarded to the
claimants.
19. With regard to the first issue for consideration, this Court has examined
the accident information report, the FIR and the charge sheet, and also the
deposition of the witnesses. This court is in agreement with the submission of
the learned counsel for the claimants that when a plea of contributory
negligence is taken, evidence has to be led to prove the same. The burden lies
upon the party alleging contributory negligence to establish the same by way of
cogent evidence. In the case of Jiju Kuruvila (supra), the Supreme Court has
held that a finding of contributory negligence cannot be based on presumption
or surmises in the absence of direct or corroborative evidence. The evidence of
the CW-1 and the CW-2 has proved that the deceased was driving on his own
side, however, the oil tanker was being driven with excessive speed and was
coming on the wrong side. Such evidence has not been rebutted by the insurer.
The submission of the appellant/insurer that the deceased would have seen
from a distance that the oil tanker was coming with great sped from the
opposite direction is merely a presumption and there is no evidence with regard
to any negligent act of the deceased. Each case has to be decided in the light of

Page No.# 10/14
its own facts and circumstances and the evidence will differ from case to case.
In such view of the matter the cases relied upon by the appellant with regard to
contributory negligence cannot be made applicable in the instant case. In the
absence of any concrete evident regarding the negligence on the part of the
deceased, the tribunal has rightly come to a finding that it was only the oil
tanker bearing registration No. NL-01-D-7377 which was negligent and has
therefore rightly directed the appellant/insurer to satisfy the award.
20. As regards the second issue of assessment of the income of the deceased
by the tribunal, it is seen that the tribunal had taken the average of the income
of the two assessment years i.e., Rs.1,51,300/- and Rs.1,81,700 and arrived at
the amount of Rs.1,66,500/- p.a. The Claimant/Cross Objector has contended
that the latest ITR should have been a relevant consideration as the deceased
was a self employed person and his income could have become even higher in
future. This court is, however, of the view that the tribunal has not committed
any error by arriving at the average income of Rs. 1,66,500/- p.a as the income
of the deceased could have increased or could have also decreased in the
coming years. In the case of ICIC Lombard General Insurance Vs. Ajay
Kumar Monhanty and Ors . reported in (2018) 3 SCC 686 , the Supreme
Court did not find any fault in the calculation made by the Tribunal in arriving at
an average income by considering the income tax returns for the past three
years. Hence this court deems it proper not to interfere in the assessment of
monthly income of Rs. 13,875/- i.e., Rs. 1,66,500/- p.a.
21. With respect to the grant of compensation on account of loss of filial

consortium to the mother of the deceased, the observation of the Supreme
Court in the Case of Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram

Page No.# 11/14
reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 and also in the case of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur , reported in
(2021) 11 SCC 780 , is relevant in the instant case. In the aforementioned
judgments, the Supreme Court has recognized filial consortium as a distinct
head of compensation and in view of such principle laid down by the Supreme
Court as regard compensation against loss of consortium to the mother of the
deceased in a motor vehicle accident, this court is of the considered view that
the mother of the deceased is entitled to compensation an account of loss of
filial consortium.
22. We now come to the question as to whether interest may be awarded on
future prospects, which is added to the income of the deceased. On this point
the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that this Court as well as
many of the coordinate benches of this court has held in various judgments that
interest on future prospect should not be granted. However, the learned counsel
for the claimants/cross objector has brought to the notice of this court the
recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Niru and Ors. (supra)
where the Supreme Court held as under:
“ 11. In fact, it is due to the repudiation of or refusal to consider the claim
that the claimants are driven to the Tribunal. When the matter is pending
before the Tribunal or in appeal before the higher forums, the claimants
are deprived of the compensation for future prospects. If they are paid in
time, it could be utilized by the claimants and on failure, the loss of
dependency would force the claimants to source their livelihood from
elsewhere. This is sought to be compensated at least minimally by award
of interest, which oftener than ever is nominal also since only simple
interest is awarded. If the amounts were disbursed to the claimants on a
rough calculation, on intimation of the accident to the Insurance

Page No.# 12/14
Company, subject to the award of the Tribunal, necessarily there would
not have been any interest liability at least to the extent of the
disbursement made. Hence, we reject the contention and direct that the
entire awarded amounts would be paid with interest at the rate of 9%
from the date of filing of the claim till the date of disbursement, deducting
only Rs. 50,000/- granted as interim compensation, in SLP(C) No. 11340
of 2020 and 6% in SLP(C) No. 22136 of 2024 as awarded by the High
Court; deduction to be made for the amounts already paid. ”
As already quoted above, in the aforementioned recent judgment, the Apex
Court has directed that interest on future prospects should be given.
23. The Claimants/Cross objector has also prayed for enhancement of the rate
of interest from 6% pa to 9% p.a. With regard to the interest this court is of the
opinion that an interest of Rs. 7.5% p.a would be fair and justified.
24. Having considered the appeal as well as the cross objection in its entirety
and in view of the discussion and observations made hereinabove, this Court
does not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.
Consequently, the cross objection of the claimant/cross objector is partially
allowed and the compensation to which the claimants are found entitled is
calculated as below:-

Sl.
Description Amount
No.
1 Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 13,875/-
2 Future prospect at 40% Rs. 13,875+

Page No.# 13/14
Rs.5550/-
3 Monthly income with future
Rs. 19,425/-
prospects
4 Less: 50% for personal expenses Rs. 19,425-Rs.9713/-
5 After deduction of 50% Rs.9712/-
6 Loss of dependency Rs.9712x12x18
= Rs.20,97,792/-
7 Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-with 10%
increase= Rs.16,500/-
8 Funeral expenses Rs. Rs. 15,000/-with
10%= Rs.16,500/-
9 Filial consortium Rs, 40,000/-with 10%
increase= Rs.44,000/-
10 Total compensation Rs.21,74,782/-
25. In view of the above, the claimants are entitled to get compensation of

Rs.21,74,782/-(twenty one lakhs seventy four thousand seven
hundred and eighty two) with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from
the date of filing the claim petition till realization The insurance company is
directed to deposit the above awarded amount after deducting the amount of
Rs. 10,63,896/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Sixty Three Thousand Eight
Hundred Ninety Six) which is already withdrawn by the claimants, before the
Registry of this court within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of this

Page No.# 14/14
judgment and upon depositing the same shall be disbursed to the claimants
after proper verification and identification.
26. This appeal as well as the cross objection is accordingly disposed of. The
Registry shall send back the Trial Court Records expeditiously.

JUDGE
Comparing Assistant