1. Appeal against MACT award for death in motor vehicle accident under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1940
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Begum Jyotshna Hoque And Ors. W/o. Md. Shah Alam Haque - Respondent
MACApp. No.75 Of 2022
Decided On : 18-09-2026
Important Points
The burden of proving contributory negligence lies with the party alleging it and cannot be based on presumption. Additionally, claimants are entitled to filial consortium and interest on future prospects in motor accident compensation cases.
Subject
Civil Law - Motor Accident Claims
Act Referred
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.173
Headnote
(A) Motor Accident Claims - Contributory Negligence - Burden of Proof - A finding of contributory negligence cannot be based on mere presumption or surmises; the party alleging it must provide cogent evidence to establish the negligence of the deceased. (Para 19)
(B) Compensation - Assessment of Income - Use of Average Income - Calculating average income from multiple years' Income Tax Returns is a valid approach and does not constitute an error. (Para 20)
(C) Compensation - Filial Consortium - Entitlement of Mother - Filial consortium is a distinct head of compensation, and the mother of a deceased victim in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to the same. (Para 21)
(D) Compensation - Interest on Future Prospects - Grant of Interest - Interest is payable on the amount awarded towards future prospects. (Para 22)
Issues: Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was correct.
(B) Compensation - Assessment of Income - Use of Average Income - Calculating average income from multiple years' Income Tax Returns is a valid approach and does not constitute an error. (Para 20)
(C) Compensation - Filial Consortium - Entitlement of Mother - Filial consortium is a distinct head of compensation, and the mother of a deceased victim in a motor vehicle accident is entitled to the same. (Para 21)
(D) Compensation - Interest on Future Prospects - Grant of Interest - Interest is payable on the amount awarded towards future prospects. (Para 22)
Issues: Whether there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was correct.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- tort
- practice and procedure
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr T Kalita, Mr. A Kakati
For the Respondent: Mr. M Dutta, Mr K M Bora,Mr. A Bhattacharyya
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr T Kalita, Mr. A Kakati
For the Respondent: Mr. M Dutta, Mr K M Bora,Mr. A Bhattacharyya
Table of Contents
2. Insurer argues contributory negligence by deceased; claimants seek enhancement of compensation and interest rate. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 )
3. Tribunal correctly fixed negligence on oil tanker driver; no evidence of contributory negligence by deceased. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 )
4. Burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it, requiring cogent evidence. (Para 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed; cross objection partly allowed with modified compensation and 7.5% interest per annum. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
6. What is the burden of proof for a plea of contributory negligence?
The burden of proving contributory negligence lies on the party alleging it, requiring direct or corroborative evidence, not presumption or surmises. (Para 19 )
7. Should the average of past income tax returns be used to compute income for compensation?
Yes, the Tribunal can compute average income from past income tax returns, as it reflects possible fluctuations in income over the years. (Para 20 )
8. Is a mother entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium?
Yes, the mother of a deceased is entitled to compensation for loss of filial consortium, as recognized by the Supreme Court. (Para 21 )
9. Can interest be awarded on the amount for future prospects?
Yes, interest may be awarded on the amount for future prospects, as held by the Supreme Court in Niru and Ors. (Para 22 )
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER :
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act’ 1988 has been preferred by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited challenging the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2021 passed by the learned MACT, Golaghat in MAC Case No. 25/2014.
2. Heard learned counsel, Mr. T. Kalita, for the appellant. Also heard Mr. M.Dutta, learned counsel for the claimant/respondents/cross objectors.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal in brief is that the claimant/respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had filed the MAC Case No. 25/2014 claiming compensation for the death of their son/brother in a motor vehicle accident on 30.09.2013 near the Universal Oil Depot on National Highway 37 under Dergaon Police Station in which the vehicle bearing registration No. NL-01/D-7377/Oil Tanker was involved.
4. It was the case of the claimant/respondents that the deceased Samadul Alam Hoque was proceeding from Dergaon Chariali towards Jorhat riding his friend’s motor cycle bearing registration No. AS03/F-9108 with proper care and caution on his own side when the driver of the vehicle/Oil Tanker came from the opposite direction and knocked down the motor cycle being driven by the deceased.
5. Upon hearing the parties, the MAC Case No. 25/2014 was disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 01.11.2021 and total compensation of Rs. 21,27,792/- was awarded to the claimant/respondents along with interest @ 6%p.a from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 01.11.2021, the insurer/appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the ground that the learned tribunal failed to appreciate that the accident took place between two moving vehicles coming from opposite directions and that the evidence of one Sharif Uddin Ahmed/CW-2 was recorded as an eye witness. CW-2 claimed to have seen the oil tanker vehicle coming in a rash and negligent manner and at very high speed, therefore, it was natural as a prudent man for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid collision when he had already seen the vehicle coming from a distance from the opposite direction at high speed. Learned counsel submits that from the said evidence of CW-2 it is understood that the accident was a case of head on collision between two vehicles and as such, the learned tribunal could not have settled the entire liability upon the appellant being the insurer of the oil tanker bearing No. NL-01/D-7377, but ought to have apportioned the liability between both the vehicles in the ratio of 50:50.
7. Learned counsel further submits that the learned tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that during the cross examination of CW-2 it has come to light that there were several vehicles plying through the National Highway at the time of the accident and as such there could hardly be any room for the vehicle oil tanker to proceed on the wrong side. However, the learned tribunal did not appreciate these vital aspects. It is stated that the alleged offending vehicle being an oil tanker could not have been driven in a rash and negligent manner as it is a heavy vehicle and rather the motor cycle being a two-wheeler had the maximum probability of losing control and thereby causing the accident, but such aspect was not considered by the learned tribunal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the deceased was also responsible for the accident as he would have seen the oil tanker coming at high speed and should have taken proper precaution and therefore, the learned tribunal should have held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the case of Kamlesh and Ors, Vs Attar Singh and Ors . reported in (2015) 15 SCC 364 wherein two vehicles were involved; a Maruti car and a three-wheeler tempo. The Supreme Court held that the method and manner in which the accident took place leaves no room for
