Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1827
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Represented By Its Regional Manager – Petitioner
Versus
Munindra Mohan Kalita, S/o. Sri Gajendra Mohan Kalita and Ors. – Respondents
MACApp. No.590 of 2017
Decided On : 23-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Mrs. B. Acharya, Mr. A. Acharya.
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Singh, Mr. A. Bhattacharyya.
A driver’s negligence must be proven with substantial evidence for contributory liability; a mere crash is not sufficient to apportion fault without corroborative testimony.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against MACT award for compensation - The court found no evidence of contributory negligence from the other vehicle; the accident was solely due to the offending vehicle's rash driving and the fake license claim was inadequately substantiated. (Paras 3, 12, 20)
(B) Contributory Negligence - To hold both drivers equally responsible requires substantive evidence; mere head-on collision is insufficient. (Paras 8, 20)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sustained grievous injuries when a truck, driving on the wrong side, collided with a car in which he was an occupant. The MACT awarded compensation of Rs. 94,000 to the claimant based on the evidence.
Findings of Court:
The learned MACT's ruling that the claimant's injuries were caused solely by the truck driver was upheld; no proof of fake license was sufficiently provided by the insurer.
Issues: The critical issues were whether the accident was caused entirely by the truck's negligence and if the driving license of the truck driver was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that contributory negligence must be substantiated by evidence, and prescription of liability is founded upon the proof of valid licensing of the driver at the time of the accident.
Result: MAC appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and claimant's injury (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. claim of contributory negligence (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. dispute over driving license validity (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 19) |
| 4. principles of contributory negligence (Para 8 , 12) |
| 5. claims of negligence as substantiated (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. court’s analysis of evidence (Para 17 , 18 , 20) |
| 7. conclusive findings on negligence (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 8. final judgment and dismissal of appeal (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT :
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Acharya, the learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, the learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This is an appeal u/s 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against the judgment and award dated 18.05.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. :1, Kamrup, in MACT Case No. 265/2015.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 17.10.2013 when a Spark car was proceeding from Nagaon towards Guwahati on the left side of the road and while reached at Nellie Over Bridge, on NH way, all of a sudden a truck bearing No. AS-01/BC-8671 coming from the opposite direction in a very high speed, came on the wrong track, knocked the aforesaid car from the front side, consequent to which the occupant of the car Sri Munindra Mohan Kalita (the claimant) sustained grievous injuries on his person. The claimant is of the view that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the truck and claimed compensation by registering a case vide MAC Case No. 265/2015. After going through the evidence on record, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kamrup passed a judgment on 18.05.2017 and has awarded compensation of Rs. 94,000/- to be paid to the claimant by the insurer of the offending truck i.e. New India Assurance Co. Ltd, the appellant herein.
The owner and the driver of the offending truck did not contest the case and the case proceeded ex-parte against them.
4. It is submitted by Mr. Acharya, the learned counsel for the appellant that the Hon’ble Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record on its proper perspective in assessing compensation. As the accident occurred due to head on collision as stated by the claimant in the claim petition itself and in its evidence, so both the drivers should be held equally responsible for the accident and the owners of both the vehicles should have been made equally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. But, the learned Tribunal has committed error by not taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and awarded the whole amount to be paid by the present appellant being insurer of the Truck.
5. It is further submitted by Mr. Acharya that the Driving License of the driver of the offending truck is incorrect and forged. In that aspect the present appellant had filed an additional Written Statement stating that the Driving License of the driver of the offending truck was incorrect and forged and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and had examined two Defence Witnesses in that regard. But, the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration the fact that the Driving License is fake and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner, has whimsically held that the appellant is only liable to pay compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs. 94,000/-. Thus, the order of the learned Tribunal is not legally sustainable.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that the claimant stated that the deceased was earning a monthly income of Rs. 10,000/-. But in support of it, he could not provide any documentary evidence regarding his profession and income. The learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and awarded the amount of Rs. 30,000/- under head of loss of income, which is not legally sustainable.
7. It is submitted by Mr. Acharya that to substantiate the fact the Driving License was fake, two DWs were also examined by the appellant and it is also an admi
