The Branch Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs Smt. Punam Sarkar (Paul) and 5 Ors.

TRHC010017302024
2026:THC:1449
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA

MAC App.No.112 of 2024

The Branch Manager,
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
Having its Branch Office at Agartala,
Sakuntala Road, Near Metro Bazar,
P.S.- West Agartala, District- West Tripura,
(Insurer of the vehicle No.TR-03-A-2795 Auto Rickshaw)
……Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Smt. Punam Sarkar (Paul)
W/O Late Tanmoy Rudra Paul

2. Smt. Tanisha Rudra Paul
D/O Late Tanmoy Rudra Paul

3. Smt. Ratna Rudra Paul @ Ratna Paul,
W/O Sri Dhirendra Rudra Paul,

4. Sri Dhirendra Rudra Paul,
S/O Late Harianda Rudra Paul,

All of South Bank of Amarsagar,
P.S.-R.K. Pur, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura
(Represented No.2 being minor represented by Respondent
No.1, her mother).

.….Claimant Respondents

5. Sri Goutam Das,
S/O Santosh Das,
Of Purba Gokulpur (Kali Tilla),
P.S.- R.K. Pur, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura
(Previous owner of vehicle No.TR-03-A-2795, Auto Rickshaw).

6. Mr. Rahim Miah,
S/O Md. Sahid Miah,
of Purba Gokulpur,
P.S.-R.K. Pur, Udaipur, Gomati, Tripura.
(Present owner-cum-driver of vehicle No.TR-03-A-2795, Auto
Rickshaw)

……Owner Respondent(s)





For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubhajit Chakraborty, Adv.


For Respondent(s) : Mr. Arjun Acharjee, Adv.


Date of Hearing : 06.10.2026

Date of delivery of

Page 2 of 8

Judgment and Order : 12.10.2026

Whether fit for
Reporting : YES


HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT
Judgment & Order
This appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is
preferred challenging the judgment and award dated
04.09.2023 delivered by Learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur, in connection with
case No. T.S.(MAC) 5 of 2021.
02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Chakraborty
appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company and
also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. Acharjee appearing on
behalf of the respondent-claimant-petitioners.
03. Taking part in the hearing, Learned Counsel for the
appellant first of all drawn the attention of the Court that in this
case the FIR was lodged against an unknown auto rickshaw and
accordingly, a case was registered although after completion of
investigation, the I.O. laid charge-sheet against the owner-cum-
driver namely, one Rahim Miah. It was further submitted by the
learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that,
although the learned Trial Court had considered the father to be
a dependent, but the deduction towards personal and living
expenses should, in fact, be one-third (1/3) of the deceased’s
income . Furthermore, in pursuance of the judgment of the

Page 3 of 8

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sarla Verma at the time of
determination of compensation no deduction has been made
regarding tax, professional tax of the deceased for which
judgment needs to be interfered with.
He further submitted that Learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards the minor who suffered loss of love, care,
affection and guidance of the father. But there is no scope to
award any compensation towards the aforesaid head and i.e.
beyond the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Pranay Sethi judgment. So, Learned Counsel urged for
interference of the judgment rendered by Learned Tribunal
below and for remanding back the matter to the Learned
Tribunal again for redetermination of the compensation after
deducting the tax and other components.
04. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the
respondent-claimants submitted that there was no infirmity in
the judgment delivered by Learned Tribunal. Further, Learned
Counsel for the owner submitted that there was no infirmity in
the judgment delivered the Learned Tribunal.
Considered.
05. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. Now let us
narrate herein below the subject matter of the claim-petition
filed by the respondent-claimant-petitioners before the Learned
Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur:

Page 4 of 8

Respondent No.1 is the wife of the deceased.
Respondent No.2 is the daughter of the deceased. Respondent
No.3 is the mother of the deceased and respondent No.4 is the
father of the deceased. According to the claimants, on
08.01.2019 at about 11 p.m. when the husband of the
respondent-petitioner No.1, Tanmoy Rudra Paul was returning
back to home from the side of Tepania, Udaipur by riding his
motor bike bearing No.TR-03-G-5354 and on the way when he
reached near Police Line Chowmuhani on Agartala-Udaipur main
road, his bike was dashed by an auto rickshaw bearing No.TR-
03-A-2795 (Auto Rickshaw) which was coming from the
opposite direction and as a result of which the accident took
place. Due to the accident, he sustained fatal injuries on his
person and he was taken to Gomati District Hospital from where
considering the nature of his injuries he was referred to AGMC
and GBP Hospital at Agartala. At GBP Hospital he was admitted
as an indoor patient and on the following day, i.e. on
09.01.2020 he succumbed to his injuries. According to the
respondent-claimant-petitioners, the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.TR-03-A-
2795 by its driver and in this regard, a police case bearing
No.06 of 2020 under Sections 279/304A of IPC was registered
at R.K. Pur P.S.
It was further submitted that at the time of accident
the deceased was 27 years old and he was serving as a

Page 5 of 8

Constable of Police, under Department of Home, Govt. of
Tripura and was drawing salary at the rate of Rs.27,795/- per
month. It was further submitted that the deceased was the sole
earning member of his family and the petitioners were
dependent upon his income. So, the respondent-claimant-
petitioners filed the claim-petition for granting of compensation.
The respondent-Insurance Company, i.e. the
appellant herein filed written statement and also the owner-
cum-driver filed written statement but before the Tribunal save
and except the respondent-claimants and the O.P. owner, the
present appellant did not adduce any oral/documentary
evidence on record. So, based upon the evidence on record, the
Learned Tribunal delivered the judgment/award which has been
challenged by the appellant-Insurance Company to this Court.
06. Perused the judgment of the Learned Tribunal. At the
time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company referring the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
tried to draw the attention of the Court that no P-Tax and I-Tax
was deducted by the Tribunal at the time of determination of
compensation. But in this regard, before the Learned Tribunal
nothing was submitted by the appellant-Insurance Company.
Learned Tribunal determined the compensation treating the
monthly income of the deceased @ Rs. 27,795/- per month. On
perusal of the salary slip (Exhibit-7), it appears that in the
salary slip only P-Tax was deducted but no Income Tax was

Page 6 of 8

shown to be deducted. Probably the deceased was not an
assesse under the purview of the Income Tax Act. Even at the
time of cross-examination of the claimant-petitioner not a single
question was raised from the side of the appellant-Insurance
Company regarding deduction of tax. Even to substantiate the
contention no oral/documentary evidence was adduced by the
appellant-Insurance Company. So, this plea taken by Learned
Counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted at this stage.
Furthermore, regarding entitlement of the father it was
submitted that no such plea was taken according to Learned
Counsel for the appellant by the claimants that the father was
depending upon the income of the deceased. Rather on perusal
of the examination-in-chief-in-affidavit of the claimant-
petitioners i.e. PW1, said PW1 in the affidavit specifically stated
that apart from the other claimants the parents of the deceased
were also depending upon the income of the deceased. As
already stated, the appellant-Insurance Company regarding
dependency of the father did not ask any question to the
claimant-petitioner regarding his dependency and also to deny
the said fact no documentary evidence on record is adduced by
the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the
father was not depending upon the income of the deceased. So,
this two points as raised by Learned Counsel for the appellant
cannot be accepted. However, at submitted by Learned Counsel
for the appellant Rs.50,000/- was awarded by the Learned

Page 7 of 8

Tribunal towards love, care, affection and guidance to the
respondent-claimant petitioners. But in this regard, no
conventional heads were found to award the said amount
because at the time of determination of compensation future
prospects, dependency, conventional amounts were considered
by the Learned Tribunal. Thus, it appears that the said amount
was given without application of proper mind. So, the same
amount needs to be deducted from the total amount awarded
by the Tribunal.
Thus, after deduction of Rs.50,000/- the total
amount of compensation comes to (Rs.65,16,000/-) – (Rs.
50,000/-)=Rs.64,66,000/-. The respondent-claimants are only
entitled to the said amount from the appellant-Insurance
Company.
07. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-
Insurance Company is partly allowed with modification that the
appellant-Insurance Company shall pay the aforesaid amount of
Rs.64,66,000/- to the claimant-petitioners within a period of
two months from the date of passing of this judgment with 6%
interest from the date of filing the claim-petition i.e. w.e.f.
15.01.2021 to till the date of actual payment to the Learned
Tribunal below from the date of receipt of the copy of this
judgment/order. The order of the Learned Tribunal in respect of

Page 8 of 8

disbursement of amount to the claimant petitioners are not
interfered with.
Send down the record to the Learned Tribunal below
along with a copy of this judgment/order. Also supply a copy of
this judgment to Learned Counsel for the appellant and Learned
Counsel for the respondent-claimant petitioners for their
information and necessary action.
With this observation, this present appeal stands
disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed
of.
JUDGE


Digitally signed by PURNITA
DEB
Date: 2026.10.15 18:21:12
+05'30'
PURNITA DEB

Purnita