Gauhati High Court
MACApp./67/2018 on 27 July, 2026
1
GAHC010119282017
2026:GAU-AS:10233
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MACApp./67/2018
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Having Its Registered Office At Oriental
House A 25/27 ASAF Ali Road, New Delhi
110002 And Regional Office At Guwahati
7, Represented By The Regional Manager.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
1. Fakar Uddin Talukdar,
R/o South Kandigram,
P.O. Malua, P.S. Badarpur,
District-Karimganj, Assam,
Pin-788806.
2. Khairul Islam,
R/o Vill. And P.O. Kanishail,
P.S. And District-Karimganj, Assam,
Pin-788711 (Owner of the Vehicle Bearing No.
AS-10-3439.
......Respondents
For Appellant Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate. For Respondent(s) Mr.G. Uddin, Advocate. MACApp./67/2018 1 2 Date of Hearing : 14.05.2026 Date of Judgment : 27.07.2026 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel for the respondent
No. 1.
[2] This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been preferred by the appellant, namely, Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. impugning the judgment and award dated
16.06.2017, passed by the learned District Judge-cum-
Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj, in MAC
Case No. 93/2018.
[3] The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in
brief, are that on 18.02.2011, at about 9:30 P.M., when the
son of the present respondent No. 1, namely, Zakir Hussain
Talukdar, was driving a motor cycle, a Truck bearing
Registration No. AS-10-3439, driven in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed against the motor cycle causing an accident
wherein, he sustained grievous injuries on his person.
Thereafter, after the said accident, the father of the injured
Zakir Hussain Talukdar, namely, the present respondent No. 1,
had approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
MACApp./67/2018 2
3
Karimganj by filing an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the
injuries sustained by his son in the above-mentioned vehicular
accident. The aforesaid claim case was registered as MAC
Case No. 93/2018. The present appellant contested the claim
by filing written statement taking various defences, including
the defence that the offending truck was not covered under
valid insurance policy. The owner of the offending vehicle did
not appear before the Tribunal and the claim case proceeded
ex-parte against the said owner. On the basis of the pleadings
of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed
following issues:-
“i. Whether the alleged accident took place
due to rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle bearing registration No. AS-10-A-1214 in
question and injures of the injured occurred in the
accident?
ii. Whether the vehicle was duly insured with
respective opposite party Insurance Company
covering the period of the accident?
iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get
any compensation, if so, to what extent and by
whom payable?
iv. To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is
entitled in law and equity?”
[4] In support of his claim, the father of the victim examined
4(four) witnesses and exhibited several documents. The
insurance company did not examine anywitness in support of
MACApp./67/2018 3
4
their defence. Ultimately, by the judgment and award dated
16.06.2017, which has been impugned in this appeal, a
compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-along with an
interest @ 6% per annum was awarded to the claimant.
[5] Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance
company has submitted that this appeal is mainly directed
against the impugned judgment in as much as the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal erred in assessing the loss of earning
capacity of the injured without taking into consideration the
injury report, as well as laid down principles in this regard by
the Apex Court. He submits that though the doctor, who has
been examined as witness No. 4 and, who, was one of the
members of the medical board, which assessedthe disability of
the injured victim has categorically found that the physical
disablement of the victim (son of the claimant) was only to
the extent of 10 %, as his right lower limb was found to be 2
cm short causing permanent physical disablement. However,
the Tribunal assessed the functional disability to the extent of
100%. He further submits that the medical board, which
examined the injured, had also opined that the injured
suffered intellectual impairment reducing the intelligence
quotient to 60. However, it failed to take into consideration
that the medical board has recommended further
assessmentand evaluation of the injured by neurologist and
neurosurgeon.
MACApp./67/2018 4
5
[6] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal without directing an assessment regarding the
intellectual impairment of the victim by neurologist and
neurosurgeon, as was recommended by the medical board,
had itself assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100%
without taking aid of any medical expert opinion from any
qualified neurosurgeon or neurologist.
[7] The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
injured victim has failed to adduce any evidence to show that
he was actually and gainfully employed before the accident
and an observation to that effect was also made by the
Tribunal in the impugned judgment. However, in spite of that
it came to a finding that loss of future earning capacity of the
victim is to the extent of 100%.
[8] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
Tribunal was wrong in arriving at such a decision. He submits
that the permanent disability whether it is physical or
intellectual is to be ascertained only on the basis of medical
evidence and after ascertaining permanent disability, the
Tribunal has to assess loss of actual earning capacity and for
that the Apex Court in the case of “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
And Anr.” reported in “(2011) 1 SCC 343” has laid down a
formula involving three steps. He submits that the Tribunal
has to first ascertain as to what activities the claimant could
carry on in spite of the permanent disability and what he
MACApp./67/2018 5
6
could not do as a result of such disability. The second steps is
to ascertain his vocation, profession and the nature of work
he was engaged before the accident and also his age and the
third step is to find out whether the claimant is totally disabled
from earning any kind of livelihood or whether in spite of
permanent disability the claimant could still effectively carry
on activities and function which he was carrying on earlier or
he could carry on some other work or some lesser scale of
activities of function so as to continue to earn his livelihood.
[9] The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the
instant case, the Tribunal without asking for an assessment
report on the intellectual impairment of the injured by
neurologist or neurosurgeon, on its own presumed that the
injured victim is unable to perform any kind of work thereby,
loss of his earning capacity was assessed at 100%.
[10] He submits that this is a fit case for remand of the case back
to the Tribunal for subjecting theinjured victim to medical
examination by neurosurgeon or neurologist for assessing the
actual intellectual impairment and his intelligence quotient.
[11] On the other hand, Mr. G. Uddin, the learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has
correctly granted compensation to the son of the present
respondent No. 1 for the injuries sustained by him in the
motor vehicular accident. He also submits that the Tribunal
MACApp./67/2018 6
7
has correctly assessed the loss of earning capacity at 100%.
He submits that though the physical permanent disability of
the injured victim was assessed at 10% due to shortage of his
right limb by 2 cm, however, the Tribunal had not only taken
into consideration the physical disability, but also the
intellectual impairment caused to him due to injury sustained
by him on his head. He submits that the intelligence quotient
of the injured victim was found to be 60, which is much below
the intelligence quotient of 90-150, which should be there for
a normal person.
[12] He submits that the Tribunal had correctly arrived at a
conclusion that due to impairment of intellectual capacity and
due to reduction of the intelligence quotient to 60, the injured
victim was not in a position to perform any kind of work and,
therefore, the loss of his earning capacity was assessed at
100.
[13] In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the
respondents has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of
“R. Halle Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited“
reported in “2026 INSC 260.”
[14] He submits that in the said case the intelligence quotient of
the injured victim was found to be 65, which is more than the
intelligence quotient of the present injured victim. However,
the Apex Court held that a person with intelligence quotient of
MACApp./67/2018 7
8
65 may be placed within the category of mild intelligence
disability and, thereafter, it assessed the functional disability at
100 % as due to impairment of intellectual capacity, the victim
was not in a position to perform any kind of work.
[15] The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that
since the accident in question took place way back in the year
2011, and already 16 years have lapsed, the ends of justice
may not be served by remanding the case back. He,
therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned
judgment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
[16] I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials
available on record, including the records of the MAC Case No.
93/2011, which was requisitioned from the concerned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal. I have also gone through the rulings
cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their
respective submissions.
[17] The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had correctly assessed the
functional disability of the son of the respondent No. 1 at
100% due to the intellectual impairment suffered by him
which has reduced the intelligence quotient to 60.
MACApp./67/2018 8
9
[18] As per the Oxford English Dictionary the phrase “intelligence
quotient” means a number denoting the ratio of a person’s
intelligence to the normal or average. It is a standardized
score derived from a set of structured tests designed to
measure human intelligence and cognitive abilities.
[19] In the case of “R. Halle Vs. Reliance General Insurance
Company Limited” (supra), the Apex Court accepted that a
person with an intelligence quotient of 65 may be placed
within the category of mild intellectual disability. In the said
case, the Apex Court assessed the functional disability of the
injured victim at 100% considering not only the cognitive
impairment but also the partial blindness and orthopedic
limitations affecting the mobility and stability of the victim.
[20] In the instant case, the medical injury report of the victim
Zakir Hussain Talukdar, which was issued by the Medical Board
and exhibited as Exhibit-19 shows that the injured sustained
head injury with fracture of right femur. Though the
permanent physical impairment of the injured was assessed
by the medical board at 10 % due to 2 cm shortening of right
lower limb, however his intelligent quotient assessment
indicating intellectual impairment was assessed at 60 and it
was further recommended that he requires further evaluation
and assessment by neurologist and neurosurgeon.
MACApp./67/2018 9
10
[21] Though, the medical board recommended further assessment
and evaluation by neurologist and neurosurgeon, however the
assessment made by it wherein it found the intelligent
quotient of the injured victim to be 60 has not been
challenged and it remains uncontroverted. The intelligent
quotient of 60 falls in the range of mild intellectual disability.
This court is of considered opinion that the intelligent quotient
of 60 destroys the core cognitive faculties required to manage
a business independently.
[22] The neurological damage sustained by the victim in the
accident has rendered him incapable of resuming his previous
vocation or engaging in any gainful employment resulting in a
complete loss of earning capacity. As such, the assessment
made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal regarding 100%
loss of earning capacity does not appear to be without any
basis or unreasonable. The principles governing the
assessment of functional disability for purpose of awarding
compensation has been authoritatively laid down in the case
of “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar AndAnr.” (supra) by the Apex
Court.
[23] It has been held by the Apex Court that the percentage of
permanent disability assessed by a medical board cannot be
mechanically equated with the percentage of loss of earning
capacity. What is required to be determined is the actual
impact of such disability on the earning capacity of the
MACApp./67/2018 10
11
injured, having regard to his vocation, age and nature of work
performed. The Tribunal is required to undertake a structured
analysis to ascertain the activities the claimant can or cannot
perform post injury, the nature of his profession prior to his
accident and whether the disability has resulted in total
incapacity or merely restricted or reduced the earning
capacity.
[24] In the instant case, though the claimant has failed to adduce
evidence to show his income, however, there are materials on
record to indicate that he was doing business to earn his
livelihood. The Tribunal after considering the report of the
medical board which assessed the intelligence quotient of the
injured at 60 has come to a finding that a person of intelligent
quotient of 60 cannot be employed in any employment.
Hence, his loss of earning capacity is assessed to be at 100%.
Apart from the impairment of cognitive faculties of the
injured, the Tribunal also took into consideration the other
injuries sustained by him to come to the finding that the loss
of earning capacity or functional disability of the injured is
100%.
[25] The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial and welfare-
oriented legislation enacted with the object of ensuring
expeditious relief and just compensation to victims of motor
accidents and their families. The statutory framework is
designed to advance social justice and to provide solace and
MACApp./67/2018 11
12
financial security to those who suffer on account of road
accident. Any interference with a reasoned award of motor
vehicle accident claims tribunal must, therefore, be consistent
with the spirit and object of enactment and supported by
sound judicial reasoning.
[26] In the instant case, for the reasons stated in the foregoing
paragraphs and discussions made therein, this court is of
considered opinion that the reasons cited by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal for assessing the functional disability
of the injured victim at 100% may not be faulted with as the
intelligent quotient of the victim was assessed by the medical
board at 60% which has impaired his cognitive faculties
resulting in total incapacity of earning in a livelihood.
[27] For the reasons stated and the discussions made in the
foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, this court does not
find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and
award.
[28] Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
[29] Send back the records of MAC Case No. 93/2011 to the
concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, along with a copy
of this judgment.
MACApp./67/2018 12
13
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
Munmu Digitally signed by
Munmun Boruah
n Boruah 16:41:34 +05’30’
Date: 2026.07.27
MACApp./67/2018 13
