The National Insurance Company Limited vs On The Death Of Nirmal Talukdar His Legal Heirs And 2 Ors.

Court
Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/18
GAHC010120142017

2026:GAU-AS:12933
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./15/2017
ON THE DEATH OF NIRMAL TALUKDAR HIS LEGAL HEIR
S/O SRI GOPAL TALUKDAR, R/O TIHU TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. and P.S.
TIHU, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM.
1.1: GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR (FATHER)
S/O. LT. MAYANA RAM TALUKDAR
R/O. TIHU TOWN
WARD NO.3
P.O. AND P.S. TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781371.
1.2: CHANDRA BALA TALUKDAR (MOTHER)
W/O. GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR
R/O. TIHU TOWN
WARD NO.3
P.O. AND P.S. TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781371
VERSUS
SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR and 2 ORS
S/O LATE ANIRUDHA TALUKDAR, R/O TIHU TOWN, WARD NO. 3, P.O. and
P.S. TIHU, DIST. NALBARI, ASSAM.
2:PARTHA PRATIM TALUKDAR
S/O SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR
R/O TIHU TOWN
WARD NO. 3
P.O. and P.S. TIHU

Page No.# 2/18
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM.
3:THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 3 MIDDLETON STREET
CALCUTTA 700071 AND REGIONAL AND DIVISIONAL OFFICES AT
SEVERAL PLACES INCLUDING ONE OF THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S.
ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI 781005
DIST. KAMRUP M
ASSAM
Linked Case : MACApp./336/2017
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3
MIDDLETON STREET
CALCUTTA700071
REPRESENTED BY THE ASSISTANT
GAUHATI REGIONAL OFFICE
BHANGAGARHM GUWAHATI-781005
VERSUS
ON THE DEATH OF NIRMAL TALUKDAR HIS LEGAL HEIRS and 2 ORS.
S/O SRI GOPAL TALUKDAR
R/O TIHU TOWN
WARD NO.3
PO and PS TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781371
1.1:GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR (FATHER)
S/O. LT. MAYANA RAM TALUKDAR
R/O. TIHU TOWN
WARD NO.3
P.O. AND P.S. TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781371.

Page No.# 3/18
1.2:CHANDRA BALA TALUKDAR (MOTHER)
W/O. GOPAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR
R/O. TIHU TOWN
WARD NO.3
P.O. AND P.S. TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN-781371.
2:SRI RANJIT TALUKDAR
S/O LT. ANIRUDHA TALUKDAR R/O TIHU TOWN
WARD NO. 3
P.O. and P.S. TIHU
DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM PIN - 781371
3:SRI PARTHA PRATIM TALUKDAR
S/O SRI RANJI TALUKDAR R/O TIHU TOWN
WARD NO. 3
P.O. and P.O. TIHU DIST. NALBARI
ASSAM PIN - 781371.
------------


BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA


For the Appellant(s) : Mr. BK Jain, Advocate
for the Appellant in MAC App No. 15/2017.
Ms. RD Mozumdar, Advocate for respondents
in MAC App 15/2017


For the State respondent(s) : Ms. RD
Mozumdar, Advocate for the appellant in MAC
App No. 336/2017.
Mr. BK Jain, Advocate for the respondents in
MAC App 336/2017


Date of hearing :27.08.2026
Date of Judgment &Order :07.09.2026

Page No.# 4/18


JUDGMENT & ORDER


1. Heard Ms. RD Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant in MAC
Appeal Number 336/2017, as well as respondent No. 3 in MAC Appeal Number
15/2017. Also heard Mr. BK Jain, the learned counsel for the
respondent/claimant in MAC Appeal No. 336/2017 as well as for the appellant in
MAC Appeal No. 15/2017.
2. By this common judgment, this court proposes to dispose of these two
connected appeals arising out of the same judgment. The MAC Appeal No.
336/2017 has been filed by the appellant, namely, the National Insurance
Company Limited, impugning the judgment and award dated 07/09/2016,
passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, in MAC Case No.
804/2011. In the said appeal, the appellant Insurance Company has impugned
the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the liability to pay compensation by
the present appellant was wrongly attributed by the Claims Tribunal on the
present appellant, when the accident involved in this case is a clear case of
accident resulted due to hit-and-run by an unknown vehicle. The appellant has
also questioned the quantum of compensation paid by the Tribunal to the
claimant. On the other hand, MAC Appeal No. 15/2017 has been filed by the
claimant, Late Nirmal Talukdar, seeking enhancement of the quantum of
compensation paid by the Tribunal. It is pertinent to mention herein that during
the pendency of both these appeals, the claimant, Nirmal Talukdar had expired
and his legal heirs were substituted in his place.

Page No.# 5/18

3. The facts relevant for consideration of both the appeals, in brief, are
that on 6/7/2010, when the claimant, Late Nirmal Talukdar, was coming from
Basistha Chariali to Beltola Tiniali in a motorcycle bearing registration number
AS 01 AC 7454 as a pillion rider and when the said motorcycle reached near SBI
Beltola Branch, just after overtaking an unknown motorcycle, the said unknown
motorcycle knocked down the motorcycle, on which the claimant was riding,
from backside. As a result of which both the claimant as well as rider of the
motorcycle sustained grievous injuries on their person. After the accident, the
claimant was immediately taken to Agile Hospital at Beltola and from there, he
was referred to GNRC Hospital for better treatment. In the GNRC Hospital, the
claimant took treatment as an indoor patient from 06.07.2010 to 05.08.2010. A
case i.e., Beltola PS case No. 320/2010 was also registered in connection with
the aforesaid accident under Section 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code.
4. Thereafter, the claimant approached the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup, Guwahati, by filing an application under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained
by him in the aforesaid accident. The driver and the owner of the offending
vehicle, (i.e. the motorcycle, bearing registration number AS 01 AC 7454) did
not contest the claim despite due service of notice on them and as such, the
inquiry proceeded ex-parte against them. However, the appellant of MAC Appeal
No. 336/2017i.e.,the National Insurance Company Limited contested the claim
of the claimant by filing written statement, wherein it denied its liability to pay
any compensation to the claimant.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed
following issues.

Page No.# 6/18
“
i. Whether the claimant, Nirmal Talukdar, sustained grievous
injuries in the alleged road accident dated 06.07.2010 involving
vehicle No. AS 01 AC-7454 (Motorcycle) and whether the said
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver
of the said vehicle?
ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and
if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties,
the said compensation amount is payable?”
6. In support of his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and
exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company also examined 1 witness
as DW 1 and also exhibited the FIR as well as the written ejahar filed in
connection with the aforesaid case. However, ultimately, by the judgment and
award, which has been impugned in both these appeals, the Tribunal allowed
the claim petition and awarded a compensation amount of Rs 6,29,000/- along
with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till
payment to the claimant. The appellant Insurance Company was directed to pay
the said amount.
7. Ms. R. D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance
Company in MAC Appeal No. 336/2017 has submitted that the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal had erred in attributing the liability of paying the compensation
on the appellant Insurance Company without taking into consideration the fact
that this case was a case of hit-and-run by an unknown motorcycle. She submits
that the evidence of DW-1, wherein the FIR as well as the written ejahar was
exhibited by the witness for the Insurance Company, clearly shows that in the

Page No.# 7/18
FIR, it has been stated that the accident was caused due to an unknown
motorcycle. She further submits that the Tribunal also did not consider the
statement of the claimant made during the cross-examination as PW-1, wherein
he admitted that the police case was registered against the unknown
motorcycle, which knocked down the motorcycle in which the claimant was
riding. She further submits that under such circumstances, the proper course
available for the claimant was to seek compensation under Section 161 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. She has also submitted that the Tribunal has erred in
holding that the driver of the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-
7454 was solely responsible for the accident, ignoring the fact that admittedly
the aforesaid motorcycle was hit by an unknown motorcycle which has caused
the accident.
8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has further submitted
that the Tribunal also erred in ignoring the fact that the vouchers submitted by
the claimant for expenses incurred on his treatment relates to the treatment of
eye, which has no connection with the accident involved in this case. She
submits that there is nothing on record to indicate that the claimant sustained
injuries in his eye due to the aforesaid accident. As such, the vouchers against
which compensation is claimed by the claimant for his medical treatment does
not have any connection with the accident involved in this case, and the
Tribunal failed to take this into consideration.
9. She further submits that the medical bills which were exhibited as
Exhibit-17(1) to 17(41) do not have any corresponding prescriptions to relate
the same with the expenses incurred on the treatment of injuries sustained by
the claimant in the accident involved in this case. As such, she submits that the
Tribunal has erred in granting compensation to the claimant on the basis of

Page No.# 8/18
medical documents which are not connected with the accident. Hence, she
prays that the impugned judgment and award may be set aside and quashed. In
support of her submissions, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
cited following rulings:
a) New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bismillah Bai & Others reported
in (2009) 5 SCC 112.
10. On the other hand, Mr. B.K. Jain, the learned counsel for the claimant,
has submitted that the Tribunal has rightly attributed the negligence which
caused the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries, on the driver of
the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454. He submits that
merely because of the fact that in the FIR, which was lodged by the father of
the claimant in connection with the aforesaid accident, it has been stated that
the accident occurred due to an unknown motorcycle, it is not the conclusive
finding regarding the cause of the accident.

11. He submits that the claimant, who was riding as a pillion rider on the
motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454, has categorically
deposed that while the claimant was sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle
bearing registration number AS-01-AC-7454, which was driven by one Partha
Pratim Talukdar, reached near SBI Beltola Branch at Beltola-Basistha Road, while
overtaking one unknown vehicle, the driver of the motorcycle on which the
claimant was riding on pillion applied the brake and the unknown motorcycle
knocked down the said motorcycle from backside. He submits that sudden
putting on brake by the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was
riding as pillion also contributed to the accident. Hence, he submits that this is a
case of composite negligence of driver of both the motorcycles which resulted in
the accident in which the claimant sustained injuries.

Page No.# 9/18
12. He submits that in a case of composite negligence, the wrongdoers are
jointly and severally liable for payment of the entire damages to the injured
person, and such an injured person has a choice of proceeding against any of
the wrongdoers or against both of them. He submits that the claimant has the
option of claiming compensation from both the drivers or any of them. As such,
he submits that no error on this count has been committed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment in attributing negligence on
the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration number AS-01-AC-
7454.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the claimant has
cited following rulings:
a. T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC
748
b. Jagdish Prasad Agarwalla v. Upendra Singh & Ors., reported
in (2012) 2 GLT 15.
13. The learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that on
death of the claimant after passing of the award by the Tribunal, the said award
becomes estate of the deceased, and as such, his legal heirs are entitled to get
the compensation awarded to the claimant, if he died before disbursement of
the said award.

14. He submits that the claimant sustained multiple fractures on the frontal
bone involving orbital roof, linear fracture of the left frontal bone involving
orbital roof. He submits that damage to the orbital roof has directly caused harm
to eyes and surrounding visual structures, for which he had to take treatment at

Page No.# 10/18
various hospitals for a long term, and the Tribunal rightly took into consideration
the expenses incurred on the treatment of injuries sustained by him, including
the injuries sustained on his eyes.

15. He, however, submits that the claimant had incurred expenses up to
about Rs. 10,00,000/- on treatment of injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid
accident. However, as he was busy in his treatment, he could not keep all the
medical documents properly. As such, the Tribunal ought to have taken a holistic
view of the matter and, apart from the vouchers exhibited by him, he ought to
have been awarded some compensation on account of future treatment and
some more compensation on account of expenditure incurred for incidental
causes regarding his treatment.
16. The learned counsel for the claimant has further submitted that though
the Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant on account of injuries
sustained by him in the aforesaid accident, however, it was on the lower side
inasmuch as it assessed the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month
only, in spite of the fact that the claimant has exhibited salary certificate as
Exhibit-6, which indicates that his monthly salary was Rs. 6,000/-. As such, he
submits that the claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation against the
head 'Loss of Income'.

17. He further submits that due to injuries sustained by the claimant, the
claimant had to be accompanied by one attendant whenever he used to visit
hospitals for his treatment. As such, he submits that enhanced compensation
against expenditure incurred by the claimant towards payment of charges to

Page No.# 11/18
attendant, nurse, transportation, and special food may be granted to him.
18. The learned counsel for the claimant submits that in a motor accident
claims case, where the claimant is seeking compensation on account of injuries
sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident, he is not required to prove his
claim beyond reasonable doubt. Even the strict procedural requirement of a civil
case is also not applicable, though he is required to establish his case only on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Hence, he submits that the
claimant has been able to prove that he sustained multiple injuries for which he
had to take treatment for a long period of duration. He submits that the
compensation awarded to him has to be commensurate with the expenses
incurred by him, however, the compensation granted to him is on the lower
side. Hence, he prays for modifying the award by enhancing the same to justify
grant of just compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in
the aforementioned motor vehicular accident.
19. 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 learned counsel for both sides in support of their
respective submissions.
20. The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal has rightly attributed the negligence which caused the
accident in which the claimant suffered injuries on the driver of the motorcycle
bearing registration No. AS-01-AC-7454, and whether it has correctly awarded
the compensation amount of Rs. 6,29,000/- along with interest at the rate of
6% per annum to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the above-

Page No.# 12/18
mentioned accident.
21. The materials on record indicate that the motorcycle bearing registration
number AS-01-AC-7454, on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider, was
hit by an unidentified motorcycle, as a result of which the accident had
occurred. The question to be examined is as to whether the driver of the
motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as pillion was also negligent in
some manner which contributed to the accident, or whether it was solely
because of the negligence of the driver of the unidentified motorcycle.
22. It appears that though in the FIR which was lodged in connection with
the aforesaid accident, it has been mentioned that the accident occurred due to
an unknown motorcycle, however, there is no indication in the said FIR that the
description of the accident as mentioned in the FIR is on the basis of an account
of any eyewitness. Whereas, in the claim petition filed by the claimant, namely,
late Nirmal Talukdar, as well as in his evidence-on-affidavit submitted before the
Claims Tribunal, he has categorically stated that when the driver of the
motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider overtook an
unknown vehicle and he applied brakes, the unknown motorcycle knocked down
the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding from backside. This fact of
trying to overtake the unknown vehicle by the driver of the motorcycle on which
the claimant was riding, as well as application of brakes by him which resulted
in the unknown motorcycle hitting the motorcycle in which the claimant was
riding from behind, has not been controverted by the insurance company during
cross-examination of PW-1. Neither any other evidence has been adduced by
the insurance company to counter the evidence of the claimant witness, that is
PW-1, who was an eyewitness of the accident.

Page No.# 13/18
23. The fact that the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was
sitting as a pillion rider tried to overtake the unknown vehicle and while doing
so applied brake could not be controverted by the insurance company during
cross-examination of PW-1. After going through the testimony of PW-1, this
Court is of considered opinion that the uncontroverted fact that the driver of the
motorcycle on which the claimant was sitting as a pillion rider, trying to overtake
and then applying brakes, also contributed to the cause of accident which
occurred on the fateful day.
24. While discussing a scenario in which two or more vehicles were involved
and there appears to be negligence on the part of two or more persons which
caused the accident, the Supreme Court of India in the case of T.O. Anthony v.
Karvarnan (supra) has observed as follows:
6. Composite negligence” refers to the negligence on the part
“
of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of
negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that
the person was injured on account of the composite negligence
of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly
and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire
damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding
against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not
establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer
separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the
extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other
hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence
on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result
of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the
injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his

Page No.# 14/18
contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some
negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by
reason of the negligence on his part but the damages
recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in
proportion to his contributory negligence.”
25. In the instant case also, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, it
appears that the driver of the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a
pillion rider as well as that of the unknown motorcycle were both negligent,
which caused the fateful accident. As such, this Court is of considered opinion
that this is a case of composite negligence of the drivers of both the
motorcycles involved in the accident. As such, owners and drivers of both the
motorcycles are jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of entire
damages, and it was the option available with the claimant to proceed against
both of them or any of them. Hence, this Court is of considered opinion that the
Tribunal was not wrong in attributing the negligence on the part of the driver of
the motorcycle on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider, though this
Court is not in agreement with the Tribunal that the driver of the motorcycle on
which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider is solely responsible for the
accident in which the claimant sustained injuries.

26. Let us now consider as to whether the cash memos and other medical
documents exhibited by the claimant pertains to the treatment of injuries
sustained by him in the aforesaid accident.
27. On perusal of Exhibit-2, which is the discharge summary and advice slip

Page No.# 15/18
issued by the GNRC Hospital, it indicates that the claimant was admitted in the
GNRC Hospital on 06.07.2010 and was discharged therefrom on 05.08.2010. He
was admitted as a case of injury in a road traffic accident which occurred on
06.07.2010 at 4:30 PM at Beltola. It also appears that the claimant sustained
multiple injuries on his person, including extradural hematoma in right frontal
region, contusion in left frontal and temporal region, multiple comminated
depressed fracture of right frontal bone involving the orbital roof, linear fracture
of left frontal bone involving orbital roof, fracture of anterior and posterior wall
of right maxillary sinus and fracture of right lateral orbital wall, collections in
maxillary, ethmoid, and sphenoid sinuses. Mere perusal of the discharge
certificate indicates that the claimant sustained multiple injuries on his face,
including fracture of right orbital wall as well as left orbital wall and orbital roof.
Exhibit-15, which are the photographs of the claimant while he was admitted in
the GNRC Hospital, also indicate that he sustained injuries on his right eyes.
28. Moreover, Exhibit-2 clearly indicates that the claimant suffered fracture
of both the right and left orbital roofs. The orbital roof forms the bony ceiling of
the eye socket, sitting in direct physical proximity to eyeball and surrounding
ocular tissues. The injury to orbital roof is likely to cause damage to eyes also,
and the medical documents exhibited by the claimant indicates that he took
treatment for his eyes, more specifically the right eye, for a long period of time.
29. This Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the medical documents,
including the cash memos and prescriptions referred to and exhibited by the
claimant, relates to the treatment of injuries sustained by him in the above-
mentioned motor vehicular accident. As such, the Tribunal was right in awarding
compensation against the medical expenses incurred by the claimant for

Page No.# 16/18
treatment of injuries which he sustained in the above-mentioned motor
vehicular accident.
30. The Tribunal has also awarded a reasonable compensation against the
heads 'pain and suffering', 'loss of amenities of life', 'incidental expenditure
towards hospitalisation, transportation, special food and nursing'. As such, this
Court finds no justification to interfere with the same.

31. As regards the compensation awarded against loss of income on
account of injuries sustained by the claimant in the aforementioned vehicular
accident, this Court is of opinion that though the claimant did not specifically
adduce any evidence to show the period for which he sustained loss of income
due to injuries suffered by him in the aforementioned vehicular accident,
however, considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment
undergone by the claimant for such injuries, the Tribunal has awarded
compensation for loss of earning for a period of one year, taking his monthly
income at Rs. 5,000/- per month. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the
said assessment.
32. Though, the claimant has exhibited a salary certificate issued by one Sri
S.R. Haloi, who is a Class-I (A) contractor, wherein he had certified that for the
last 13 months the claimant was serving as site supervisor under him for
construction work and he used to get Rs. 6,000/- per month as his salary;
however, a bare perusal of the said certificate indicates that the nature of
employment was purely temporary and was only for the last 13 months prior to
issuance of the certificate. Moreover, the person who issued the said certificate
was also not examined by the claimant to corroborate his testimony that he was

Page No.# 17/18
getting Rs. 6,000/- per month. As such, this Court is of considered opinion that
the Tribunal was not wrong in taking the salary of the claimant on the basis of
lump sum at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Hence, this Court sees no justification for
interfering with the compensation awarded against loss of income to the
claimant by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in the impugned judgment and
award.

33. However, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded an interest of 6%
only on the awarded compensation, which, in the considered opinion of this
Court, is bad in law in view of the observations made by the Apex Court in the
Narendra Singh v. Nishant Sharma & Anr.,
case of reported in (2015) 14 SCC
353, wherein it has observed as follows:-
“ 15. Further, an interest at the rate of 6% per annum on
the compensation was awarded by the Tribunal which
was enhanced to 7.5% by the High Court. The interest
rates determined by both the courts below are bad in law
as per the legal principles laid down in MCD v. Uphaar
Tragedy Victims Assn. (2011) 14 SCC 481 :, wherein this
Court has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum
on the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants.
Applying the same legal principles, we grant interest at
the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded
by this Court.”

34. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs, this Court is of considered opinion that the compensation of Rs.

Page No.# 18/18
6,29,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant may be regarded as a just
compensation. However, the interest of 6% per annum as awarded by the
Tribunal is enhanced to 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim
petition till realisation.
35. In view of the above discussion, the insurance company is directed to
deposit the outstanding due against the compensation awarded to the claimant
in pursuant to the observations made in the instant judgment before the
Registry of this Court within six weeks from the date of this judgment. On such
deposit being made, the same shall be disbursed to the legal heirs of the
original claimant who were substituted in his place in both the appeals on his
death.
36. In view of the discussions made above, MAC App. No. 15/2017 is partly
allowed, whereas MAC App. No. 336/2017 is dismissed.
37. The Registry shall send back the records of MAC Case No. 804/2011 to
the concerned Tribunal with a copy of this judgment immediately.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Nabajyoti
Haloi
Digitally signed by
Nabajyoti Haloi
Date: 2026.09.07
05:14:24 -07'00'