GAHC010145052022

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : MACApp./214/2023

SUKRA MUNDA

S/O- LATE SIKKA MUNDA, R/O- NO. 3 PANERY, P.S. AND DIST. UDALGURI,

BTAD, ASSAM

VERSUS

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

LNB ROAD, P.O. AND DIST. MANGALDAI, ASSAM, PIN- 784115.

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR A ALI, MS D DEORI,MS. M KHATUN

Advocate for the Respondent : , MS B PATHAK (R-1),MR. D DAS (R-1),MR. R C PAUL (r-2)

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

ORDER

Date : 10-12-2025

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Ms. Kangkan Taye as

well as Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance

Company.

2. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed praying for enhancement of the compensation against the judgment and award dated 06.10.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge. F.T.C, Darrang Mangaldoi in MAC(D) Case No.66/2012.

3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal is that the appellant had filed a claim petition being MAC Case No.66/2012 before the Court of the Additional District Judge. F.T.C, Darrang Mangaldoi claiming Rs.8,00,000/- for the accidental death of his brother and the same was dismissed due to non-joinder of the son of the deceased. The appellant challenged the dismissal order by filing MAC. Appeal No.264/2017 before this Court and this Court disposed of the matter by directing the appellant to file fresh claim petition by impleading the son and daughter of the deceased. During the pendency of the appeal, the son of the deceased passed away and the present appellant filed fresh claim petition being MAC(D) Case No.66/2012 but during pendency of the case, the daughter of the deceased also expired. The fresh claim petition was considered by the Tribunal and the impugned judgment and award dated 06.10.2021 was passed thereby granting an award of Rs.1,20,000/- along with interest at 6% per annum and directed the insurance company to pay within 90 days failing which they were directed to pay future interest at the rate of 8% till realization of the compensation amount.

4. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, the appellant/claimant is before this Court on the ground that the case is a death reference case and the total claim was Rs.8,00,000/- and as such the awarded amount of Rs.1,20,000/- is unreasonable. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should have considered that the appellant was the appropriate claimant as the son and daughter of the deceased had already passed away. It is also submitted that since compensation under M.V. Act is a beneficial legislation strict principles of evidence Act should not be followed. The learned counsel has placed reliance in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Nishit Ghosh & Another reported in 2013 (5) GLJ 523.

5. Referring to the above mentioned case, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the claim application of the brother of the deceased stating that the brother of the deceased may be a legal representative in the absence of preferential heirs under the personal law of the parties. It is also stated that even if a legal representative is not dependant on the deceased and there is no loss of dependency, a legal representative would be entitled to ‘no fault liability’ under section 140 of the Act of 1988 which is a statutory liability and which can be considered as part of the estate of the deceased. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the brother being the only surviving legal heirs of the deceased, he should be considered as appropriate claimant and the Tribunal should have awarded appropriate compensation on loss of dependency.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 Mr. R.C. Paul on the other hand submits that at best, the appellant can be considered as legal heir and the tribunal