1. Motor accident claim – Pillion rider with permanent disability – Appeal against compensation award – Challenge to income proof, disability certificate, and policy conditions. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1477
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
Shri. Lalbabu Mahato And Ors. S/o Shri Biash Mahato - Respondent
MACApp. No. 20 of 2025
Decided On : 17-07-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Kim Pienyu, Laknyei Phom, Keti Imchen Advocate
For the Respondent: P. B. Chhetry, Pfosekho Pfotte, Chubanungkum, Medo Vero
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Kim Pienyu, Laknyei Phom, Keti Imchen Advocate
For the Respondent: P. B. Chhetry, Pfosekho Pfotte, Chubanungkum, Medo Vero
A salary certificate proved by employer can establish income, but a disputed disability certificate requires doctor's examination to determine permanent disability and loss of earning capacity for just compensation.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 173 - Compensation - Income proof - Salary certificate proved by employer - Monthly income of Rs.18,000 upheld - Disability certificate - Necessity of examining doctor when disputed - Permanent disability - Loss of earning capacity - Functional disability - Principles in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar applied - Insurance - Pillion rider as third party - Package policy - Breach of policy not established - Just compensation - Remand for determination of disability.
(B) Evidence - Examination of treating doctor - Section 165 of Indian Evidence Act - Power of Tribunal to summon medical board - Disability certificate not automatically conclusive; oral evidence required if contested - Advocate Commissioner's report not substitute for medical opinion.
(C) Compensation - Heads of damages - Loss of future earnings - Attendant expenses - Loss of income during treatment - No double counting - Amount already paid to be adjusted.
Facts of the case:
On 25.11.2022, the claimant, aged 33, was a pillion rider on a motorcycle which met with an accident due to rash driving by the driver. He suffered grievous head injury and 90% permanent disability (loco motor). He filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded Rs.57,56,000/-, including monthly income of Rs.18,000 based on a salary certificate from the employer (who was also the owner). The insurer appealed, challenging the income proof, disability certificate not proved by examining doctor, and alleged breach of policy (commercial use). The claimant sought enhancement, arguing no award for loss of future earning capacity.
Findings of Court:
The salary certificate was duly proved by the employer (DW-1) through cross-examination, so monthly income of Rs.18,000 was correct. The disability certificate (Ex-PW-10) was disputed by the insurer; the Tribunal did not examine the issuing doctor. Following Raj Kumar, the doctor must be examined or a medical board reference made to determine percentage of permanent disability and its effect on earning capacity. The pillion rider is a third party covered under the package policy; no breach of policy conditions. The award under non-pecuniary heads was not interfered with, but amounts for loss of income (duplicative) and special aid for attendant were set aside. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh determination of loss of future earning, attendant expenses, and loss of income during treatment, after recording medical evidence.
Issues: (1) Whether the monthly income of Rs.18,000 based on a salary certificate was correctly assessed? (2) Whether the disability certificate required examination of the doctor when disputed? (3) Whether the pillion rider was a third party entitled to compensation under the policy? (4) Whether the quantum awarded was just and proper?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a salary certificate proved by the employer is sufficient to establish income. However, for a disputed disability certificate, oral evidence of the doctor is necessary to assess the extent of permanent disability and functional loss of earning capacity. The pillion rider is a third party and the insurance policy covers him; mere delivery of a parcel does not amount to commercial use. The Tribunal must ensure a just and fair award by taking into account all relevant heads, including loss of future earnings and attendant care, and must avoid duplication. Result : Appeal disposed of; impugned award modified and case remanded to the Tribunal for fresh determination on disability and related heads, with directions on evidence and adjustment of amount already paid.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- motor accident compensation
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Insurer challenges income proof, disability certificate, policy breach, and non-pecuniary damages; claimant asserts proof of income and disability, third-party status of pillion rider, and seeks enhanced compensation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Appeal partly allowed – Award modified – Loss of income and attendant heads set aside – Remand for determination of loss of future earning after doctor examination. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. What constitutes sufficient proof of income in motor accident claims when a salary certificate is produced?
Court held that a salary certificate proved by the employer's deposition constitutes sufficient proof of income, and the Tribunal may rely on it. (Para 21 )
5. Is examination of the doctor mandatory when the disability certificate is disputed in motor accident claims?
Yes, when disability certificate is disputed, the doctor must be examined or the Tribunal may summon a medical board; otherwise, the certificate cannot be relied upon for assessing permanent disability. (Para 22 , 23 , 26 )
6. Is a pillion rider considered a third party under a motor vehicle insurance package policy?
Yes, a pillion rider is a third party and entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even if the vehicle is insured under a package policy for private use. (Para 24 )
7. What is the correct approach to assess loss of earning capacity in cases of permanent disability from motor accident injuries?
The percentage of permanent disability is not automatically the percentage of loss of earning capacity; the Tribunal must assess functional disability based on nature of profession, age, education, etc. (Para 25 , 26 )
JUDGMENT & ORDER :
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
This is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 16.06.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimpaur Nagaland in MACT Case No.36/2023.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Kim Pienyu. Also heard Mr. P.B. Chhetry, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant.
3. Notice was served on the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by way of substituted summon through publication in the local dailies and compliance affidavit with regard to the same has been filed by the appellant. However, none appears for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
4. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal is that on 25.11.2022 at around 8.30 PM, the claimant/respondent No.1 was travelling as pillion rider on a Motor Cycle bearing registration No.NL-07/R- 4585 towards Lahorijan from Saharijan Sukhanjan side (Bokajan). The claimant/respondent No.1 and the Driver/respondent No.3 were coming back after handing over a marriage gift as instructed by the owner of the Motor Cycle/respondent No.2. On reaching Paklangso Tiniali on NH 39 at around 8.30 PM, the Motor Cycle met with an accident while being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No.3. As a result, the claimant/respondent No.1 who was aged about 33 years at the time of the accident sustained grievous head injury and suffered permanent disability with little chance of recovery.
5. The claimant/respondent No.1 represented by his brother filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT, Dimapur and the same was registered as MACT Case No.36/2023.
6. After hearing the parties and after recording evidence, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 16.06.2025 awarding an amount of Rs.57,56,000/-(Fifty seven lakhs fifty six thousand) and directed the appellant to satisfy the award within a period of 30 days from the date of judgment. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award dated 16.06.2025, the appellant has come before this Court mainly on four grounds.
7. Firstly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant in support of his income had produced a “To Whom It my Concern” note purported to have been issued by the respondent No.2 who was his employer as well as the motor cycle owner. However, the same was not written on any official writing pad bearing either Trade License No/Registration No/ Contract license No./Address etc. There was also no appointment order or any attendance sheet or employees list or salary records. Therefore, in the absence of any definite proof of income or any corroborative documentary evidence, the Tribunal could not have taken the monthly income as Rs.18,000/-. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal should have determined the salary on the basis of notional income or minimum wages for an unskilled labor as the claimant was the in-charge of the laborers and his duty was only to arrange the labor and see the progress of the work. The learned tribunal therefore could not have relied on the “To Whom It my Concern” note produced and exhibited as the salary certificate.
8. Another ground which the appellant has taken is that the Doctor who had treated the claimant or the Doctors who had issued the disability certificate were not examined by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability certificate was not proved by giving the opposite parties an opportunity for cross-examination of the Doctor/Doctors who issued such disability certificate. To support her submission in his regard, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of:-
(i) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Lalliansawmi and Ors reported in 2010 (2) GLT 176.
(ii) National Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Chandreswar Thakur and Ors reported in 2001 (1) GLT 393 and
(iii) Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343.
9. The third ground
