Gauhati High Court
Hussain Ahmed vs Rintu Das on 29 July, 2026
Page No. 1/10
GAHC010234052017
2026:GAU-AS:10507
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : MACApp./145/2017
HUSSAIN AHMED
S/O MD. ABDUL NOOR, R/O VILL. JUHIRKANDI,
P.O. JADUTILA, P.S. and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
VERSUS
RINTU DAS,
S/O LATE RISHIKESH DAS, R/O BIPIN PAUL ROAD,
KARIMGANJ TOWN-788711, P.O. and DIST. KARIMGANJ, ASSAM.
2:THE BRANCH MANAGER
CHOLAMANDALAM MS GIC LTD.,
SANKAR COMPLEX, CHRISTIAN BASTI
G.S. ROAD, P.O. GUWAHATI 781005
DIST.KAMRUP (M), ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
For the Appellant : Mr. M. Talukdar, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. R. Goswami, Advocate
Date of Hearing : 14.05.2026
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2026
Page No. 2/10
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. Heard Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance
Company.
2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has
been filed by the appellant/claimant impugning the judgment and award dated
26.06.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge,
Karimganj, in MAC Case No. 54/2011. The appellant is basically aggrieved with
the quantum of compensation awarded to him by the Claims Tribunal.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are
that on 01.03.2011, the appellant was traveling in a Night Super bus bearing
Registration No. AS-14-C-1731 from Karimganj to Guwahati. When the said bus
reached Arungabad, it collided with a truck near Shiva temple at Aurangabad,
Badarpur. As the appellant was seated on the window seat, his right arm was
severed by the broken window glass. Apart from the said injury, he also
sustained other injuries.
4. Later on, the appellant approached the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Karimganj, by filing an application under Section 166 of the MV Act,
1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the aforesaid
accident. The said case was registered as MAC Case No. 54/2011. Though, the
present respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement, however,
later on he failed to pursue the matter and the claim proceeding proceeded ex-
parte against it.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the Motor Accident
Page No. 3/10
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-14-
C/1731 (night super Bus) in question and injuries of the injured
occurred in the accident?
(ii) Whether the vehicle was duly insured with the opposite party,
Insurance Company covering the period of the accident?
(iii) Whether the claimant is entitled to 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?
6. The present appellant examined himself as a witness in the claims
proceeding. However, the Court also examined three Court witnesses in the
aforesaid case. Ultimately, by the judgment and award which has been
impugned in this appeal, all the issues were decided in favor of the present
appellant and the claim case was disposed of by directing the Insurance
Company to pay a compensation amount of Rs.8,75,000/- to the present
appellant along with an interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
7. Mr. M. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the Tribunal has erred in computing the compensation which was granted
to the present appellant. He submits that though the CW-1 and CW-2 in their
testimony before the Claims Tribunal have categorically stated that the present
appellant was a driver and though the appellant himself while deposing as PW-1
has deposed that his annual income was Rs.12,000/- at the time when the
Page No. 4/10
accident occurred. However, the Tribunal erroneously took the monthly income
of the appellant at Rs.5,000/-, which is much below than what he was actually
earning at that point of time. The learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that a driver may be regarded as a skilled worker and monthly
income may be considered at least at Rs.10,000/-.
8. He also submits that since the appellant suffered amputation from
shoulder level and he was assessed to have permanent disability to the extent
of eighty-five percent, he should have been paid at least two lakhs against the
head “pain and suffering”. However, only Rs.50,000/- was granted to the
claimant against the pain, suffering and agony. He also submits that since this
was a case of an injury arising out of a motor vehicle accident, no deduction
under the head personal expense should have been made. However, he submits
that the Tribunal committed error by deducting fifty percent of the total income
assessed towards personal living expenses.
9. He also submits that since right hand of the applicant was amputated
at shoulder level and since there is a possibility of implanting artificial limb, and
the appellant has also adduced evidence showing the expenses which may be
incurred for implanting the artificial limb (Exhibit-25) and the said estimate is to
the tune of Rs.5,04,250/-. However, he submits that the Tribunal has assessed
the compensation under said head by granting lump sum amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- only. He further submits that no compensation has been granted
against loss of amenities of life and loss of future expectation and he may be
granted compensation against the said head also.
10. He also submits that though the appellant was admitted in hospital for
indoor treatment for a period of 21 days, no compensation was awarded to him
Page No. 5/10
against the expenses incurred by him towards his attendant. He also submits
that the interestawarded at the rate of 6% per annum is also on the lower side
and same may be enhanced to at least 9% per annum. In support of his
submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited following rulings: –
(1) “Syed Sadiq etc. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance
Company Limited” reported in “MANU/SC/0033/2014”;
(2) “Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another” reported in “(2011) 1 SCC
343”;
(3) “Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors .” reported in “2020 Legal
Eagle (SC) 562”;
(4) “Dinesh Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited “
reported in “2014(2) T.A.C. 737 (S.C.)”;
(5) “Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma” reported in “(2015) 14 SCC 353”;
(6) “Josphine James Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and
another” reported in “2013 (4) T.A.C. 22 (S.C.)”;(7) “Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Omenchiba” reported in “2023
Legal Eagle (GAU) 545”;
(8) “The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Niru @ Niharika and Ors.”
[Special Leave Petition (C) No. 11340/2020, dated 14th July, 2025].
11. On the other hand, Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company has submitted that the appellant has not adduced any
evidence regarding his income. He submits that apart from production of driving
license, no other document was produced to show the income of the appellant.
He submits that the Tribunal has correctly assessed the monthly income of the
appellant at Rs.5,000/-, which is on a higher side than the notional income of
Page No. 6/10
unskilled worker, which was prevalent at that point of time. In support of his
submission, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company has
produced a notification dated 15 th March, 2012 which shows that the notional
income of an unskilled worker at that point of time was only Rs.3,900/- (Rupees
Three Thousand Nine Hundred). He, however, fairly submits that since the case
is a case of injury in a vehicular accident, no deduction ought to have been
made against personal and livingexpenses of the appellant.
12. He also submits that the Tribunal has also rightly assessed the lump
sum amount towards future expenses which takes care of the necessity of
implanting an artificial limb in place of the amputated right hand of the
appellant. He, however, submits that no interest can be granted on the
compensation awarded against future expenses by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal. He submits that as the said expenses was not incurred by the
appellant at the time of the accident and it was only a future contingency, no
interest can be awarded on such future expenses.
13. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that
when compensation is awarded by treating the loss of future earning capacity at
anything more than fifty percent, the need of awarding the compensation
separately under the head loss of amenities or loss of expectation of life may
disappear and only a nominal amount may be awarded under the said head. In
support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of
“Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar & Others” reported in “(2011) 1 SCC 343″.He has also
cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of ” R. D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control
(India) Private Limited” reported in “(1995) 1 SCC 551”.
14. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both
Page No. 7/10
sides and I have gone through the materials available on record. I have also
gone through the records of the MAC Case No. 54 of 2011, which was
requisitioned from the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. I have also
gone through the rulings cited by learned counsel for both sides in support of
their respective submissions.
15. The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Karimganj was right in assessing the quantum of
compensation which has been awarded to the claimant in the MAC Case No.
54/2011.
16. As regards monthly income of the appellant, though, he has stated in
his oral testimony before the Tribunal that he used to earn Rs.12,000/- per
month, however, he has failed to adduce any documentary evidence or any
other evidence to corroborate his oral testimony. The Tribunal had assessed the
monthly income of the appellant considering his vocation as a driver at the time
of accident to be Rs.5,000/- per month.
17. In the instant case, the accident in which the appellant sustained
injuries occurred on 01.03.2011 and as per the notification dated 15.03.2012, it
shows the notional income of an unskilled worker was Rs.3,900/- at that point
of time. As such, the Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant on a slight
higher side. However, this Court does not deem it proper to interfere with the
assessment made by the Tribunal regarding the monthly income of the injured
victim.
18. It also appears on perusal of the impugned judgment that while
computing the compensation awarded to the claimant/appellant, the Tribunal
Page No. 8/10
had deducted 50% of the total income towards the living and personal expenses
of the appellant. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduce the observation
made by the Apex Court in the case of “Rahul Ganpatrao Sable Vs. Laxman
Maruti Jadhav (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Others”, reported in
“(2023) 13 SCC 334” as follows: –
“Deduction towards personal expenses
15. The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards personal expenses.
The present case being not of death and the claim not being made by the
dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the accident with severe injuries
resulting into permanent disability, there could not be any justification for
deduction of personal expenses. We do not approve the said deduction in view of
the judgment of this Court in Lalan D. [Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
(2020) 9 SCC 805: (2021) 1 SCC (Civ) 253 : (2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 238]”
19. From above, it appears that in a claim case where the claimant has
sustained injuries resulting into permanent disability, there cannot be any
justification for deduction of personal expenses. As such, said deduction cannot
be made while computing the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the
claimant/appellant.
20. It also appears that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) on lump-sum basis towards medical
expenses to be incurred in future. This Court is of opinion that considering the
fact that the right arm of the appellant was completely amputated, the
requirement of fixing a prosthetic arm may be there and as such, a minimum of
Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) may have to be awarded for the same. The
requirement of a prosthetic arm in case of amputation of arm from shoulder is
an immediate medical requirement and same cannot be regarded as an expense
to be incurred in future. As such, the amount awarded for prosthetic arm would
carry interest thereon.
Page No. 9/10
21. Similarly, the amount assessed by the Tribunal for pain and suffering
and agony to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is found to be reasonable considering the
facts and circumstances of this case.
22. In view of above discussion, the compensation to be awarded to the
appellant is assessed as follows: –
(1) Loss of earning Rs.5,000 X12 X 16 = Rs. 9,60,000/-
(2) Expenses incurred in medical expenditure Rs.45,000/-
(3) Expenses to be incurred on future medical treatment including
implantation of a prosthetic arm Rs.5,00,000/-
(4) Compensation on account of pain, suffering and agony Rs.50,000/-
(5) Total Rs.15,55,000/-
(6) The interest payable on the awarded compensation is also enhanced
from 6% to 7.5% per annum.
23. In view of the above discussion, the Insurance Company/respondent is
liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs.15,55,000/- along with an interest @
7.5% per annum to the claimant. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the outstanding due against the awarded compensation at the rate stated
herein above before the Registry of this Court within a period of four weeks
from the date of this judgment.
24. On such deposit, same shall be disbursed to the appellant/claimant by
the Registry after proper verification.
25. This appeal is accordingly allowed.
Page No. 10/10
26. Send back the record of MAC Case No. 54/2011 to the concerned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal along with a copy of this judgment.
Abhishek Digitally signed by
Abhishek Prem JUDGE
Prem Date: 2026.07.30
16:52:02 +05'30'
Comparing Assistant
