Gauhati High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Smti. Hiramoni Boro on 24 July, 2026
Page No.# 1/13
GAHC010002392016
2026:GAU-AS:10256
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./854/2018
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 24, WHITES ROAD,
CHENNAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, DISPUR, GUWAHATI
VERSUS
SMTI. HIRAMONI BORO
W/O - LATE RAJESH BORO
2:MISS SONIA BORO
D/O LT. RAJESH BORO
3:SRI JINTU BORO
S/O LT. RAJESH BORO ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILL- DONGPAR P.O.
BARIMAKHA
P.S. BARBARI DIST. BAKSA
BTAD
ASSAM RESPONDENT NOS. 2 and 3 BEING MINORS ARE REP. BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.1. CLAIMANTS
4:SRI GANESH BASUMATARY
S/O LT. SANTHALA BASUMATARY R/O VILL- NO. 1 SILAKUTI P.S.
BARBARI DIST. BAKSA
BTAD
ASSAM OWNER OF THE VEHICLE NO. AS-01AW- 3229 ZYLO
PRIVATE LM
Page No.# 2/13
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellant : Ms. M. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. R. De, Advocate
(For respondent Nos. 1 to 4)
: Mr. F. A. Hassan, Advocate
(For respondent No. 5/Owner)
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 24.07.2026
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants.
2. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been
preferred by the appellant, United India Insurance Company Limited, impugning
the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015, passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, in MAC Case No. 398/2014, whereby the present
appellant/Insurance Company was directed to pay a compensation amount of
Rs.10,66,000/- along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
3. The facts relevant for the instant appeal, in brief, are that on
21.07.2014, at about 5:20 PM, one Rajesh Boro, who was the husband of the
claimant No. 1 and father of the claimant Nos. 2 and 3 was driving a Zylo
vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AW-3229. When the said vehicle reached
Page No.# 3/13
Barimakha Chowk, in order to save a pedestrian, the vehicle met with an
accident and went off the road as a result of which the driver of the vehicle,
namely, Rajesh Boro, sustained serious injuries on his person. He was
immediately taken to Mushalpur PHC and thereafter to Barama PHC and from
there to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital. He was also shifted to the
GNRC Hospital and thereafter again to Guwahati Medical College and Hospital.
However, on 03.08.2014, said Rajesh Boro succumbed to his injuries. The
vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant/Insurance
Company, namely, United India Insurance Company Limited. A police case,
namely, Barbari P.S. Case No. 30/2014 under Sections 279/338/304(A) IPC was
also registered in connection with the aforesaid accident.
4. Thereafter, the present respondents/claimants approached the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari, by filing an application under Section 163A of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for death of their
husband/father in the aforementioned motor vehicular accident. The present
appellant as well as the owner of the offending vehicle contested the claim of
the claimants by filing separate written statements.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were
framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari: -
"(i) Whether Rajesh Boro the husband of the claimant No.1 and the
father of the claimant No.2 and 3 died on 03-08-2014 at about 3:50
p.m., at GMCH as a result of injuries sustained by him due to use of
the offending vehicle?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get any compensation as
prayed for and if so, to what extent and from whom?
Page No.# 4/13
(iii) To what other relief or reliefs the claimants are entitled to?"
6. In support of their claim, the claimants adduced the evidence of
claimant No. 1 and also exhibited certain documents. The Insurance Company
did not adduce any evidence in their defence. Ultimately, the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal by the judgment which has been impugned in this appeal has
allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation to the
claimants/respondents in the manner as described in the foregoing paragraphs
of this judgment.
7. Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalbari has erred in awarding
compensation of Rs.10,66,000/- to the claimants ignoring the fact that the claim
petition was filed by the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. He submits that in view of the amendment to the Second Schedule of the
Motor Vehicle Act by virtue of the notification dated May 22, 2018, issued by
Central Government in exercise of powers conferred under sub-Section(3) of
Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the compensation ought to have
been payable as per the amended Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988. He submits that though the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 was amended by virtue of the aforesaid notification on 22 nd May, 2018
and though in the instant case, the accident occurred much before that, i.e., on
21.07.2014, however, he submits that since the Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is not a part of substantive law, but is a procedural law, there
is no difficulty in holding that new schedule is to be made applicable for claim
cases which are alive either before the Tribunal or pending for adjudication
before High Courts in appealirrespective of date of accident involved in those
Page No.# 5/13
cases.
8. He submits that the new amendment will not be applicable only to
those cases which have attained finality of awards upon acceptance by parties
of the Tribunaldetermination made therein. He submits that the new amended
Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for a fixed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees FiveLakhs) in case of fatal accident
resulting into the death of a third party as happened in this case. In support of
his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited following rulings:
-
(i) “The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila Halder‘ reported
in “2024 Supreme (SC) 1860”
(ii) “Urmila Halder Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited ” reported in
“2019 STPL 6893 Calcutta”
(iii) “National Insurance Company Limited Vs.Bijaya Bhuyan and Others ”
reported in “2018 (5) GLT 72”.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding compensation on a higher
side against the conventional heads like funeral expenses, pain and suffering
and loss of consortium as well as for loss of love and affection of minor children.
He submits that the Apex Court in the case of ” National Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi” reported in “(2017) 16 SCC 680” has standardized the
quantum of compensation to be awarded against conventional heads in a motor
accident claims case.
10. He submits that against the conventional heads, namely, loss of estate,
loss of consortium and funeral expenses, the compensation amount of
Page No.# 6/13
Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- has been recommended by the Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgment with a rider that said amount should be
enhanced at the rate of ten percent in every three years. He submits that the
said direction of the Apex Court in the aforesaid case ought to have been
implemented in the instant case also and there is no scope of increasing the
same by any vertical or horizontal proliferation as has been done in some cases
by courts having bench strength of lesser number than that of the bench which
decided the case of Pranay Sethi (supra). He, therefore, submits that the
compensation granted against loss of dependency ought to have been made at
flat Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) as per the amended Second Schedule to
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He also submits that compensation granted
against funeral expenses should be reduced to Rs.15,000/- and no
compensation ought to have been granted against pain and suffering. Similarly,
compensation granted for loss of consortium should be decreased to
Rs.40,000/- and no compensation ought to have been granted against loss of
love and affection for minor children as well as to the wife of the deceased,
namely, the claimant No. 1. He, accordingly, submits that the compensation
granted to the claimants may accordingly be computed and modified in terms of
submissions made by him.
11. On the other hand, Mr. J. Kalita, the learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants has submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nalbari has rightly computed the compensation awarded to the claimants after
taking into consideration all relevant materials on record as well as applicable
law. He submits that since the application for compensation filed by the
claimants was under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal was
correct in applying pre-amended Second Schedule for computing the
Page No.# 7/13
compensation. He submits that since the accident had occurred in the year
2014, i.e., much prior to when the newly amended Second Schedule was
notified on 22nd May, 2018.
12. He submits that every piece of legislation is to be made applicable
prospectively unless it is expressly or by necessary implications made to have a
retrospective effect. He submits that in the notification dated 22 nd May, 2018,
there is no indication of same being given any retrospective effect and as such,
the newly amended Second Schedule cannot be made applicable to the facts of
the instant case, which is prior to the issuance of the aforesaid notification. In
support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of
“M/s Shakti Tube Limited Vs. State of Bihar and others“, reported in “(2009) 7
SCC 673”.
13. The learned counsel for the claimants/respondents further submits that
even if the claimants are not granted any compensation for loss of love and
affection, they are entitled to get compensation on account of loss of
consortium, both spousal consortium as well as parental consortium as well as
against other conventional heads like loss of estate and for funeral expenses in
terms of the Apex Court rulings in this regard. He, therefore, submits that the
compensation granted to the claimants under Section 163 A of the Motor
Vehicles Act should not be reduced and this appeal should be dismissed.
14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both
sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone
through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of their
respective submissions.
Page No.# 8/13
15. In this case, the accident in which the husband of the claimant No. 1,
namely, Rajesh Boro expired, had occurred on 21.07.2014 i.e., much prior to the
amendment of Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act brought about by the
notification dated 22nd May, 2018.
16. The question as to whether after the amendment brought about by the
aforesaid notification, the new schedule would be applicable to pending claim
applications under Section 163 A before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as
well as the appeals arising out of the award delivered thereunder prior to May
22nd, 2018 has been settled by the High Court of Calcutta in the case of ” Urmila
Halder Vs. National Insurance Company Limited” (supra) and it was held that
while deciding pending claim applications/appeal post 22 nd May, 2018, the new
schedule ought to be applied by Tribunals as well as courts for determining
compensation payable to the heirs of an accident victim or the victim
themselves, regardless of whether the new schedule is beneficial to them or
not. This finding of the High Court of Calcutta has been upheld by the Supreme
Court of India in the case of “New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Urmila
Halder“(supra).
17. It is pertinent to mention herein that the High Court of Calcutta in the
aforesaid judgment held that Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
both substantive and procedural aspects. It observed that that part of sub-
Section (1) of Section 163 A which confers the right on legal heirs to bring an
action against the owner of the offending motor vehicle or authorized insurer
thereof for compensation is substantive law, while the means by which
enforcement of right to receive compensation can be attained i.e., determination
of compensation by the Tribunal as indicated in Second Schedule is procedural
Page No.# 9/13
law. In other words, while substantive part of law confers the right, procedural
part of law provides for the relief.
18. Thus, in view of above discussion, this Court is of considered opinion
that the compensation awarded to the claimants in the instant case ought to
have been computed in accordance with the new Second Schedule to the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 as notified by the notification dated 22 nd May, 2018, which
provides for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) payable in case
of death.
19. The next question which arises in this appeal is whether in a claim case
under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation may be
awarded against conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of estate, loss of
consortium, etc.
20. This court is of considered opinion that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a
beneficial legislation taking care of need to pay just compensation to the victims
of road traffic accident, the provisions of this Act has to be interpreted in the
manner which would further the interest of such victims. As such, this Court is
of considered opinion that the claimants are also entitled to get compensation
against the conventional heads like funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of
estate, etc.
21. As regards payment of compensation on account of loss of consortium,
the Supreme Court of India has observed in the case of ” Magma General
Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram” reported in “(2018) 18 SCC 130” as
follows: –
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi [National
Page No.# 10/13Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] dealt with the various heads
under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of
these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, “consortium” is a
compendious term which encompasses “spousal consortium”,
“parental consortium”, and “filial consortium”. The right to consortium
would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and
affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect
to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased
spouse: [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ)
179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149]21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to
the relationship of a husband wife which allows compensation to the
survivingspouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection,
and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. [Black’s Law
Dictionary (5th Edn., 1979).]21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature
death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection,
society, discipline, guidance and training”.
21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in
the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the
death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and
family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose
their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love,
affection, companionship and their role in the family unit.
22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the
status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world-
over have recognised that the value of a child’s consortium far
exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case
of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a
child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss
Page No.# 11/13
of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at
providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine
claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or
unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded
loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental
consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor
vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded
compensation on this count [Rajasthan High Court in Jagmala Ram v.
Sohi Ram, 2017 SCC OnLine Raj 3848 : (2017) 4 RLW 3368;
Uttarakhand High Court in RitaRana v. Pradeep Kumar, 2013 SCC
OnLine Utt 2435 : (2014) 3 UC 1687; Karnataka High Court in
Lakshman v. Susheela Chand Choudhary, 1996 SCC OnLine Kar 74 :
(1996) 3 Kant LJ 570] . However, there was no clarity with respect to
the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of
filial consortium.
24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be
governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “loss of
consortium” as laid down in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018)
2 SCC (Cri) 205] . In the present case, we deem it appropriate to
award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs
40,000 each for loss of filial consortium.”
22. In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that the claimant
No. 1 is entitled to get compensation on account of loss of spousal consortium
at the rate of Rs.40,000/-, whereas, other two claimants who are the children of
the deceased are also entitled to get Rs.40,000/- each against loss of parental
consortium. However, they will not be getting separate compensation on
account of loss of love and affection as well as for loss of pain and suffering.
The funeral expenses to which the claimants are entitled shall be Rs.15,000/- as
Page No.# 12/13
well as another Rs.15,000/- for loss of estate in terms of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of “Pranay Sethi” (supra).
23. In view of above discussion, the total compensation to which claimants
are entitled is computed as follows: –
(i) Compensation for death of husband/father of the claimants as per
Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988= Rs.5,00,000/-,
(ii) Funeral expenses= Rs.15,000/-,
(iii) Compensation on account of loss of estate=Rs.15,000/-,
(iv) Compensation for loss of spousal/parental consortium to each of the
claimants at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each= Rs.1,20,000/-,
(v) Reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on the deceased=
Rs.2,20,000/-
(vi) Total= Rs.8,70,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand).
24. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to get a total compensation of
Rs.8,70,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Seventy Thousand) on account of death of
their husband/father in the vehicular accident. The said amount shall carry an
interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
25. The appellant is directed to deposit the remaining outstanding dues
against the compensation awarded to the claimants before the Registry of this
Court within a period of four weeks from the date of this judgment.
26. On such deposit by the Insurance Company, same shall be disbursed by
the Registry to the claimants after proper verification.
Page No.# 13/13
27. The statutory deposit made by the appellant at the time of filing of this
appeal shall be returned back to the appellant after proper verification.
28. Let the records of MAC Case No. 398/2014 be sent back to the
concerned Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.
29. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Abhishek Digitally signed by
Abhishek Prem
Comparing Assistant
Prem Date: 2026.07.27
18:11:30 +05'30'
