Gauhati High Court
CO/17/2022 on 29 July, 2026
1
GAHC010121032021
2026:GAU-AS:10424
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MACApp./172/2021
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having Its Regional Office At Guwahati,
Ulubari, Guwahati-781007, Rep. By The
Deputy Manager, Gauhati Regional Office,
Ulubari, Guwahati-781007, Kamrup(M),
Assam.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
On the Death of Makon Hazarika Her Legal
Heirs,
W/o-Late Hemo Hazarika,
R/o-Village-Rongamati Senchowa Gaon,
P.O.-Rongamati,
P.S.-Dergaon, District-Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-785614.
1. 1: Sri Bikram Hazarika,
S/o- Late Makon Hazarika,
R/o-Village-Rongamati Senchowa Gaon,
P.O.-Rongamati,
P.S.-Dergaon, District-Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-785614.
1.2: Miss Rupjyoti Hazarika,
D/o- Late Makon Hazarika,
R/o-Village-Rongamati Senchowa Gaon,
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 1
2
P.O.-Rongamati,
P.S.-Dergaon, District-Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-785614.
1.3: Sri Pankaj Hazarika,
S/o- Late Makon Hazarika,
R/o- Village-Rongamati Senchowa Gaon,
P.O.-Rongamati,
P.S.-Dergaon, District-Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-785614.
1.4: Miss Dipjyoti Hazarika,
S/o- Late Makon Hazarika,
R/o, Village-Rongamati Senchowa Gaon,
P.O.-Rongamati,
P.S.-Dergaon, Dist.-Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-785614.
Being Represented By Sri Bikram Hazarika.
2. Moloy Borah,
S/o-Sri Madhusudhan Borah,
R/o-Amlokhi Tea Estate,
P.O.-Salona,
P.S. Samoguri,
Dist.-Nagaon,Assam,
Pin-782101.
......Respondents
For Appellant Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, Advocate.
For Respondents Mr. M. Dutta, Advocate.
WITH
CO/17/2022
Makon Hazarika Her Legal Heirs,
W/o-Late Hemo Hazarika,
R/o- Village-Rongamati Senchowa Gaon,
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 2
3
P.O.-Rongamati,
P.S.-Dergaon, District-Golaghat, Assam,
Pin-785614.
…..Cross-Objector
-Versus-
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Having Its Regional Office At Guwahati,
Ulubari,Guwahati-781007, Rep. By The
Deputy Manager, Gauhati Regional Office,
Ulubari,Guwahati-781007, Kamrup(M), Assam.
2. Moloy Borah,
S/o-Sri Madhusudhan Borah,
R/o-Amlokhi Tea Estate,
P.O.-Salona,
P.S. Samoguri,
Dist.-Nagaon,Assam,
Pin-782101.
......Respondents
Date of Hearing : 19.05.2026.
Date of Judgment : 29.07.2026.
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
[1] Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants as well as the cross-objector.
[2] By this common judgment, this court proposes to dispose of
the instant MAC Appeal, i.e. MAC Appeal No. 172/2021, filed
by the insurance company as well as the Cross-Objection No.
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 3
4
17/2022 filed by the claimants. The insurance company has
filed the instant appeal impugning the judgment and award
dated 17.03.2021, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Golaghat in MAC Appeal No. 41/2015, whereby the
appellant/insurance company was directed to pay a
compensation amount of Rs. 10,37,482/- to the claimants,
along with an interest @ 6% per annum and thereafter,
realize the same from the owner of the offending vehicle,
whereas, the cross objection has been filed by the
claimants/respondents praying for enhancement of the
compensation awarded to the claimants.
[3] The facts relevant for adjudication of the present appeal as
well as the cross objection, in brief, are that the husband of
the original claimant (Makon Hazarika) namely, Late Hemo
Hazarika was returning from Rongamati Mandir on
07.03.2015, at about 12 noon, on the National Highway No.
37, while pulling a hand cart. At that time one motor cycle
bearing Registration No. AS-02/L-0493, being driven in a rash
and negligent manner knocked him with a great force. As a
result of the said accident, the husband of the original
claimant sustained injuries on his person. Thereafter, he was
immediately shifted to Dhemaji C.H.C., in a serious condition.
He was later on referred to the Jorhat Medical College and
Hospital and from there, he was again referred to the Gauhati
Medical College and Hospital, however, ultimately, during
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 4
5
treatment, on 02.04.2015, the said Hemo Hazarika
succumbed to his injuries.
[4] Thereafter, the wife of the deceased, namely, Smt. Makon
Hazarika approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Golaghat by filing an application under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for death of
her husband in the aforementioned motor vehicular accident.
The said claim case was registered as MAC Case No. 41/2015.
It is pertinent to mention herein that at the time of his death
the deceased, Hemo Hazarika left behind his wife, two
daughters and two sons.
[5] It is also pertinent to mention herein that after the accident,
an FIR was lodged in respect of the said accident before the
Dergaon Police Station and a case, i.e., Dergaon P.S. Case No.
56/2015 under Sections 279/338/304A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860against the rider of the offending motor cycle.
[6] The claim case was contested by the owner of the offending
motor cycle by filing a written statement. The present
appellant also contested the claim case while filing a written
statement wherein, it took usual defence, which are normally
taken by insurance company in claim cases.
[7] Upon pleadings of both the parties following issues were
framed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal:-
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 5
6“(1) Whether there was rash and negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the
vehicle bearing registration No. AS-02/L-
0493 (Motorcycle) that caused the accident
on 07.03.2015, at about 12 A.M., near
Rongamati Mandir, on NH-37, under
Dergaon Police Station, in the District of
Golaghat, Assam and whether Hemo
Hazarika died as a result of the said
accident?
(2) Whether the claimant is entitled to
get compensation? If so, what is the
proper quantum and payable by whom?
(3) Any other relief?" [8] The claimant, Smt. Makon Hazarika(since deceased), in
support of her claim adduced the evidence of two witnesses,
including herself as CW-1 and one Md. Kholil Ali as CW-2 and
exhibited as many as 9(nine) documentary evidence. The
owner of the offending vehicle did not adduce any evidence,
whereas, the insurance company, i.e., the present appellant
adduced evidence of three witnesses in defence, namely, Shri
Pradeep Kr. Singh (as DW-1), Shri Sudipta Thakur (as DW-2)
and Shri Arupjyoti Bora (as DW-3).
[9] Ultimately, by the judgment and award dated 17.03.2021,
which has been impugned in the instant appeal, the Tribunal
held that the claimant is entitled to get a compensation
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 6
7
amount of Rs. 10,37,482/-, along with an interest @ 6% per
annum. It also directed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, out of
the awarded compensation be kept in fixed deposit in a
nationalized bank in the name of Shri Pankaj Hazarika, the
minor son of the deceased and Ms. Deepjyoti Hazarika, the
minor daughter of the deceased. However, it also came to a
conclusion that there was breach of policy condition by the
owner of the offending vehicle and as such, though the
insurance company was directed to pay the aforesaid amount
to the claimant at first, thereafter, a liberty was granted to the
insurance company to realize the entire amount from the
owner of the offending vehicle.
[10] Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the
appellant/insurance company has submitted that since the
insurance company had been able to prove its defence of
breach of policy condition as the driver of the offending
vehicle was not having any driving license, the Tribunal has
erred in directing the insurance company to first pay the
compensation amount to the claimant and thereafter,
recovered the same.
[11] She submits that when the breach of policy condition has
been clearly established by the insurance company, it is not
liable to indemnify the owner in case of any liability to pay
compensation to the claimant by the owner. Alternatively, she
also submits that even if the insurance company is required to
pay the compensation first to the claimant and thereafter,
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 7
8
recovered the same from the owner, some directions are
necessary as regards mode of recovery as clarified by the
Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others “reported in “(2004) 13
SCC 224.” She submits that the insurance company has
already deposited 75% of the awarded amount before the
Registry of this court and if it is required to deposit remaining
amount in terms of the direction of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, same should not be released immediately to the
claimants. She submits that in terms of the directions of the
Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others (supra) before release of the
amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle shall be issued
a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the
entire amount to which the insurance company will pay to the
claimants.
[12] The learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the
Tribunal also erred in assessing the income of the deceased @
Rs. 6,000/- per month without their being any evidence to
that effect on record. She submits that though the Tribunal
has correctly not relied upon Exhibit-7 exhibited by the
claimants, however, thereafter, without any prove of income it
assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-
per month merely on the basis that the deceased was an able-
bodied person when he died. She submits that under such
circumstances, the notional income of an unskilled person,
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 8
9
i.e., Rs. 3,000/- should be taken as income of the deceased.
However, she fairly submits that under similar circumstances,
the Apex Court in the case of “Rani & Ors. Vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.” reported in “(2018) 8 SCC 492”
has assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.
5,000/- per month. She submits that the income of the
deceased may be similarly assessed in this case also.
[13] The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also erred in not clarifying in
the impugned judgment that the insurance company is not
liable to pay any interest on the amount which was added to
the income of the deceased on account of future prospects.
She submits that as the amount assessed against future
prospect was relatable to be an income to be received in
future and as such, there could not be any loss to the
claimant for payment of future prospects at the time when the
deceased met with an accident. Hence, no interest may be
awarded against such an amount assessed on the basis of
future prospects.
[14] In support of her submissions, she has cited following
rulings:-
(1) “Khusboo Chirania @ Kanta Chirania And 3 Ors. Vs.
Kamal Kumar Sovasaria And Anr.” (Judgment dated03.09.2018 in MAC Appeal No. 141/2014).
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 9
10
(2) “Nasima Begum Vs. Keramat Ali” reported in “2019
0 Supreme (Gau) 507;”
(3) . “The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smti
Champabati Ray & 5 Ors.” (Judgment dated 01.10.2019in MAC Appeal No. 378/2017).
(4) “Pappu And Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba And Anr.”
(Judgment dated 19th January, 2018 in Civil Appeal No.
20962/2017).
[15] The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since
in this case the owner of the offending vehicle was himself the
driver and he was not possessing the driving license and he
knowingly violated the policy conditions. Hence, the insurance
company has duly proved that the insured was guilty of
negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the
matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding the use of
vehicle by duly licensed driver. In support of her submissions,
she has relied on the ruling of a co-ordinate bench of this
court in the case of “National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Md. Iqbal Hussain @ Ekbal Hussain And 2 Ors.”(Judgment
dated 04.04.2022 in MAC Appeal No. 292/2018).
[16] On the other hand, Mr. M. Dutta, the learned counsel for the
claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in holding
that there was a breach of policy condition. He submits that
the Tribunal has erred in holding that it was the owner of the
offending vehicle, who is ultimately liable to pay the
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 10
11
compensation to the claimants. He submits that the mere
absence of driving license of the driver at the relevant time is
in itself not a defence, which is available to the insurance
company under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
He submits that as held by the Apex Court in the case of
“National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors.” reported
in “2004 (3) SCC 297”, to avoid its liability towards the insured
the insurance company has to prove that the insured was
guilty of negligence and has failed to exercise reasonable care
in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use
of vehicle by duly licensed driver on one, who is not
disqualified to drive at the relevant point of time. He submits
that this fact could not be proved by the insurance company
by adducing the evidence of DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3.
[17] The learned counsel for the respondents/cross objectors has
further submitted that even if this court comes to an
agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that there was a
breach of policy condition by the owner of the offending
vehicle still the Tribunal was not wrong in directing the
insurance company to first pay the compensation to the
claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner as
it has been held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Swaran Singh & Ors. (supra) that the Tribunal thus have right
to direct pay and recovery in case of the breach of policy
condition by the owner.
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 11
12
[18] He also submits that the contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants that no interest may be awarded on future
prospects is also not tenable in law in view of the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Niru and Ors.” reported in “MANU/SC/0894/2025.”
[19] He also submits that the Tribunal has also erred in assessing
the monthly income of the deceased at only Rs. 6,000/-. He
submits that though the Tribunal did not rely on Exhibit-7,
however, Exhibit-8, which is the certificate issued by National
Federation of Fishers Cooperatives Ltd. clearly shows that the
deceased was a fish farmer and dealing with the business of
fish farming and it is also in evidence that he had to maintain
family of 6(six) dependants and therefore, the evidence of
CW-1 that her husband use to earn an amount of Rs. 10,000/-
per month should have been taken into consideration and the
income of the deceased ought to have been assessed at Rs.
10,000/- per month.
[20] He also submits that the interest awarded on the amount of
compensation assessed by the Tribunal had 6% is also on the
lower side. He submits that there are rulings of the Apex
Court wherein, the Apex Court has granted interest @ 9% on
the awarded amount and same was held to be reasonable and
justified. He, therefore, submits that the interest on the
awarded amount should be enhanced to 9% per annum.
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 12
13
[21] He further submits that the Tribunal also erred in not granting
any compensation against the head of parental consortium.
He submits that since the deceased was survived by four
children, they are entitled to get parental consortium at the
rate of Rs. 44,000/- per head in addition to grant of spousal
consortium to the wife of the deceased. He, accordingly,
submits that the compensation awarded to the claimants may
be enhanced and the cross objection may be allowed.
[22] In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the
claimants/cross objectors has cited following rulings: –
(1) “New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rina Kumal And
Anr.” reported in “2017 (3) GLT 696;”
[23] I have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the both sides and have gone through the
materials available on record, including the records of the
MAC Case No. 41/2015 which was requisitioned in connection
with this case. I have also gone through the rulings cited by
the learned counsel for both sides in support of their
respective submissions.
[24] The point to be determined in this appeal is as to whether the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat was correct in
computing the quantum of compensation which has been
awarded to claimants and whether it was right in directing the
present appellant/insurance company to pay the
compensation first and thereafter, recover the same from the
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 13
14owner of the offending vehicle. As regards the contentions of
the learned counsel for both sides regarding assessment of
annual income of the deceased by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per
month is concerned, it appears that the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Golaghat, considering the fact that the claimants
failed to produce any documentary evidence regarding the
income of the deceased did not accept the oral testimony of
claimants witness No. 1 to the effect that the earning of her
deceased husband was Rs. 10,000/- per month as he was a
member of the Brahmaputra Fish Sellers Co-operative Society,
Rangamati. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Golaghat,
also took into consideration the fact that the deceased being
a healthy person in the age group of 50 years can easily earn
an amount of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) per month.
Though, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised
objection contending that the assessment ought to have been
made on the basis of standard of notional income of an
unskilled person, i.e.@ 3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand per
month, however, she has fairly conceded that the Apex Court
in the case of Rani &Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd.
& Ors. (supra) assessed the notional income of the deceasedin that case under similar circumstances at Rs. 5,000/-
(Rupees Five Thousand) per month. Since in absence of any
concrete evidence regarding the earning of the deceased
some kind of guess work may be made by the Motor AccidentMACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 14
15Claims Tribunal with some reasons, as has been done in this
case, and same appears to be just assessment, hence, this
court does not deem it proper to disturb the assessment of
monthly income of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) made
by the Tribunal.
[25] As regards grant of compensation on account of loss of
parental consortium to the children of the deceased are
concerned, the observation of the Apex Court in the case of
“Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram” reported in“(2018) 18 SCC 130,” seems to be relevant and are
reproduced herein below:-
“21. A Constitution Bench of this Court
in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance 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
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 15
16
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 surviving spouse 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
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 16
17
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 of the love, affection,
care and companionship of the deceased
child.”
[26] In view of the above observations, as regards compensation
against loss of consortium to the children of the deceased in a
motor vehicular accident is concerned, this court is of the
considered opinion that the four children of the deceased are
also entitled to compensation on account of loss of parental
consortium.
[27] As regards the direction of the Tribunal for pay and recovery
by the present appellant of the awarded amount is concerned,
it appears that the insurance company by adducing the
evidence of DW-1, 2 and 3 has shown that the driver of the
offending vehicle was possessing a fake license on the date of
the accident. Since the driver of the offending vehicle was
also the owner of the offending vehicle, he was at fault of
breaching the terms of insurance policy and as such, is not
liable to be indemnified for any compensation paid by him on
account of any accident involving the vehicle, which was
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 17
18
insured by the present appellant. However as the claimant’s
are stranger to the contract between the owner of the
offending vehicle as well as the present appellant, the
Tribunal cannot be faulted with in directing the insurance
company to pay the compensation and thereafter, recovered
the same in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the
case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Ors.
(supra).
[28] As regards the question as to whether interest may be
awarded on future prospects which is added to the income of
the deceased or not, though in the cases, referred by the
learned counsel for the appellant, of the coordinate benches
of this court, it was held that no interest on future prospect
should be given, however, the Apex Court has observed to the
contrary in the case of the “Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Niru
& Ors.” reported in “(2025) INSC 822”. The observations made by
the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is quoted herein below:-
“9. A very relevant issue agitated
by the Insurance Company is the
illegality in awarding interest for future
prospects, which in any event is an
amount received in advance, normally
inuring to the benefit of the claimants
only in future. This is the only contention
taken in the connected appeal bearing
SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024. We find
absolutely no reason to accept thisMACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 18
19argument. In SLP(C) No.11340 of 2020,
the multiplier applied looking at the life
span of the deceased and the claimants
is 13. Before the Tribunal itself, the case
was pending for 12 years and the only
amount received by the claimants was
Rs.50,000/-. Hence though amounts are
awarded for future prospects taking the
multiplier of 13; in effect, the money is
received only after the period for which
the multiplier is adopted. Similar is the
case in SLP(C) No.22136 of 2024 where
the accident occurred in 2018, the
multiplier applied is 17 and we are seven
years from the date of accident.
10. We cannot but observe that
there was nothing stopping the
Insurance Company from settling the
claim on a computation, on receipt of
intimation of the accident, especially
since the determination of compensation
for loss of dependency, on death being
occasioned in a motor vehicle accident,
can be determined as evident from the
judicial precedents; at least
provisionally.
11. In fact, it is due to the
repudiation of or refusal to consider the
claim that the claimants are driven to
the Tribunal. When the matter is
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 19
20pending before the Tribunal or in appeal
before the higher forums, the claimants
are deprived of the compensation for
future prospects. If they are paid in
time, it could be utilized by the
claimants and on failure, the loss of
dependency would force the claimants
to source their livelihood from
elsewhere. This is sought to be
compensated at least minimally by
award of interest, which oftener them
ever is nominal also since only simple
interest is awarded. If the amounts were
disbursed to the claimants on a rough
calculation, on intimation of the accident
to the Insurance Company, subject to
the award of the Tribunal, necessarily
there would not have been any interest
liability atleast to the extent of the
disbursement made. Hence, we reject
the contention and direct that the entire
award amounts would be paid with
interest at the rate of 9% from the date
of filing of the claim till the date of
disbursement, deducting only
Rs.50,000/- granted as interim
compensation, in SLP(C) No.11340 of
2020 and 6% in SLP(C) No.22136 of
2024 as awarded by the High Court;
deduction to be made for the amounts
already paid.”
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 20
21
[29] In view of the above observations, this court is of the opinion
that the claimants are entitled to compensation with interest
@ 7.5% per annum on the whole awarded amount including
that on future prospects.
[30] In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs,
the compensation to which the claimants are found entitled is
computed herein below:-
Sl. Description Amount
No.
1. Monthly income of the deceased Rs. 6,000/-
2. Addition of 25% towards future Rs.7,500/-
prospects= Rs. 6,000+Rs.1500
3. 1/4th deduction towards personal and Rs.5625/-
living expenses of the
deceased=Rs.7500/- -Rs.1875
4. Loss of Dependency= Rs. 5625 X 12 X Rs. 8,77,500/-
13
5. Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/-
6. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/-
7. Loss of spousal consortium to the wife Rs. 40,000/-
of the deceased
8. Loss of parental consortium to each of Rs. 1,60,000/-
the four children @ Rs. 40,000/-
9. Expenditure incurred on medical Rs. 89,992/-
treatment of the deceased
10. Total= Rs. 11,97,492/-
[31] In view of above, the claimants are entitled to get
compensation amount of Rs. 11, 97, 492/-with an interest @
7.5 % per annum. The insurance company is directed to
deposit the remaining amount before the Registry of this court
within a period of 4(four) from the date of this judgment. On
such deposit same shall be disbursed to the claimants
(children of the original claimant) after proper verification.
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 21
22
[32] This appeal as well as cross-objection is, accordingly, disposed
of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant Digitally signed
Munm by Munmun
Boruah
un Date:
2026.07.31
Boruah 18:24:56
+05'30'
MACApp./172/2021
WITH
CO/17/2022 Page 22
