Facts
The deceased, Samadul Alam Hoque, died in a motor-vehicle accident on 30 September 2013 near Universal Oil Depot on National Highway 37, under Dergaon Police Station.
Source reference: p.3, paras 3–4He was riding a motorcycle from Dergaon Chariali towards Jorhat when an oil tanker bearing registration No. NL-01/D-7377, allegedly driven rashly and on the wrong side of the road, collided with him.
Source reference: p.3, paras 3–4The deceased’s parents and brother instituted MAC Case No. 25/2014 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat.
Source reference: p.3, para 5The Tribunal awarded Rs.21,27,792 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
Source reference: p.3, para 5The insurer appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, contending that the deceased had contributed to the accident and that liability should be apportioned between the two vehicles.
Source reference: pp.3–5, paras 6–9The claimants filed Cross-Objection No.30/2022 seeking enhancement on the basis of the latest income-tax return, filial consortium, enhanced conventional heads, and a higher rate of interest.
Source reference: pp.5–8, paras 10–16Issues
Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the oil tanker alone was negligent and that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the deceased?
Source reference: p.9, para 18(i)Whether the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased’s income and computed the compensation payable to the claimants?
Source reference: p.9, para 18(ii)Whether the claimants were entitled to filial consortium, enhanced amounts under the conventional heads, and interest on the component attributable to future prospects?
Source reference: pp.10–12, paras 21–22Law Applied
The appeal was considered under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Source reference: p.2, para 1The Court held that a plea of contributory negligence must be established by the party asserting it through cogent, direct, or corroborative evidence and cannot rest on presumption or surmise, applying Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjujamma Mohan, (2013) 9 SCC 166.
Source reference: pp.9–10, para 19For income assessment, the Court relied on ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Mohanty, (2018) 3 SCC 686, recognising that an average of income-tax returns may properly be adopted.
Source reference: p.10, para 20For filial consortium, it applied Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130, and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780.
Source reference: p.10, para 21The Court also relied on Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, for future prospects and periodic enhancement of conventional heads.
Source reference: pp.7–8, paras 13–14Following Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Niru, (2025) INSC 822, it held that interest could be awarded on the entire compensation, including the amount attributable to future prospects.
Source reference: pp.11–12, para 22Reasoning
The Court found that the evidence of CW-1 and CW-2 established that the deceased was travelling on his own side, whereas the oil tanker was being driven at excessive speed and on the wrong side of the road.
Source reference: pp.9–10, para 19The insurer produced no evidence demonstrating any negligent act or omission by the deceased.
Source reference: p.10, para 19The argument that the deceased ought to have anticipated and avoided the tanker was treated as a presumption unsupported by evidence; consequently, contributory negligence could not be inferred merely because the collision involved vehicles travelling in opposite directions.
Source reference: p.10, para 19On quantum, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s averaging of the two income-tax returns—Rs.1,51,300 and Rs.1,81,700—resulting in annual income of Rs.1,66,500, or monthly income of Rs.13,875.
Source reference: p.10, para 20Applying 40% future prospects and deducting 50% for personal expenses, it calculated the loss of dependency using the multiplier of 18.
Source reference: pp.12–13, para 24It further awarded filial consortium to the deceased’s mother and enhanced the amounts for loss of estate and funeral expenses by 10%.
Source reference: pp.10–11, paras 21, 24In light of Niru, the Court held that interest was payable on the entire award, but considered 7.5% per annum fair and justified rather than the 9% sought by the claimants.
Source reference: p.12, para 23Holding
The appeal by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. was dismissed, and the finding that the oil tanker alone was responsible for the accident was affirmed.
The cross-objection was partially allowed.
Source reference: pp.12–13, paras 24–25The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs.21,74,782, with simple interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition until realization.
Source reference: pp.12–13, paras 24–25The insurer was directed to deposit the awarded amount after deducting Rs.10,63,896 already withdrawn by the claimants, within six weeks, for subsequent disbursement after verification and identification.
Source reference: p.13, para 25The appeal and cross-objection were accordingly disposed of.
Source reference: p.14, para 26Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Motor Vehicles Act, 19881
Original Court PDF
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.vsBegum Jyotshna Hoque And 5 Ors. B
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
