GAHC010123512015 2025:GAU-AS:16872

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

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

Case No. : MACApp./241/2015

SMTI RENU BALA DAS

W/O LATE PHANI MEDHI, R/O VILL. UZANPARA, NEAR SRIJANGRAM

DEVELOPMENT BLOCK, P.O. SRIJANGRAM, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST.

BONGAIGAON, ASSAM 783386

VERSUS

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD and 2 ORS

REPRESENTED BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL

INSURANCE CO. LTD., BONGAIGAON DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CHAPAGURI ROAD, NORTH BONGAIGAON, P.O. BONGAIGAON, DIST. BONGAIGAON,

ASSAM 783380

2:SMTI BIBHA DEVI

W/O SHRI MANOJ SINGH

C/O SHRI ASHOK KR. RAY

3RD BYE-LANE TARUN NAGAR

DISPUR

P.O. DISPUR

GUWAHATI 781006

DIST. KAMRUP M

ASSAM.

3:MANOJ SINGH

S/O LATE RAM BACHAN SINGH 3RD BYE-LANE

TARUN NAGAR

DISPUR

P.O. DISPUR

GUWAHATI 781006

DIST. KAMRUP M ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S K SAHARIA, R MANDAL,MS. N PODDAR,S K PODDAR,MR D C NATH,MR.M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A DUTTA (r-1), MS. C MOZUMDAR (R-1),MS. R D MOZUMDAR (R-1),,MR. S P SHARMA (R-1), BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND Advocates for the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Poddar, Advocate Advocate for the Respondents : Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, Advocate Date on which judgment is reserved : 09.09.2025 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 08.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? :

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? :Pronouncement of full judgment.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S.K.Poddar for the appellant and learned counsel Ms. R.D. Mozumdar for the Insurance Company.

2. The appellant Smt Renu Bala Das is the original claimant and the respondent No.1 is the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. The respondent No.2 is Smt Bibha Devi, owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.AS-25A/0398 (truck) and the respondent No.3 is Shri Manoj Singh, driver of the aforementioned vehicle. The claimant and the insurance company will be referred to according to their original standing.

3. The claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the compensation which was erroneously calculated by assessing the monthly income of Rs. 5000/- in spite of the fact that the deceased was a practising Advocate with long-standing experience as a lawyer and also an ex-MLA and social worker of repute. It is contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the deceased to be 62 years at the time of his death, and he had a prospect of leading a healthy life for at least another 13 years with every scope of enhancement of his professional income for an average of Rs.25,000/- per month which was ought to have been calculated as income of a lawyer. It is contended that the deceased was not a tort feasor. The Tribunal has erred by not calculating loss of love and affection. The interest was not calculated from the date of filing of the petition and so on and so forth.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the insurer has laid stress in her argument that no documents were substantiated as to the income of the deceased as an Advocate or as an ex-MLA. The court has correctly calculated the income of the deceased without valid documents. Rather, the court has calculated a higher income as according to the norms, the notional income ought to have been Rs.132/- per day for an Advocate. It is submitted that the income, if calculated from the date of filing of the petition, has to be calculated on the basis of the bank rate of interest, i.e. 6.7%. It is further contended that only submission by the appellant that the deceased was an Advocate and ex-MLA and the submission that no objection was raised relating to the income of the deceased or the witnesses were cross-examined refuting the income of the deceased cannot be a ground to assess the income and assess a higher income @ Rs 25,000/- without valid documentary evidence. Rather, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer that when documents were not submitted substantiating the income of the deceased, the respondent will no