DIPANKAR PAUL V. THE BRANCH MANAGER,

MACApp./302/2017

AI Insights

The case involves Dipankar Paul, who suffered a 55% disability due to a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligent driving of a Hyundai Accent. Initially, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded him Rs. 6,56,000 as compensation, which he appealed, seeking an enhancement based on his actual income and the impact of his disability on his earning capacity. The High Court found that the Tribunal had erred in not considering vital evidence, including the appellant's income tax returns and business documents, which substantiated his claim of higher income and the existence of a jewelry shop. The court re-evaluated the compensation based on these documents and applicable legal principles, significantly increasing the awarded amount.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 667377 (HC-ASSAM NAGALAND MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
• Appeal Type: High Court cases
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr, National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A J SAIKIA
• Assessee Lawyers: B J MUKHERJEE
• Keywords: Compensation; Income Assessment; Motor vehicle accident; Negligent driving; Disability

Judgement Text

"Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010026822017 2025:GAU-AS:6933 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : MACApp./302/2017 DIPANKAR PAUL S/O LATE JUGESH PAUL, REPRESENTED BY HIS BROTHER SRI TRIBENI PAUL, R/O KOLAKHWAGAON, P.O. and P.S. BOKAKHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT VERSUS THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. NOONMATI BRANCH , GUWAHATI INSURER OF CAR VIDE VIDE POLICY COVERAGE NOTE 120929/GHJY 2000 CN DATED 28.12.2004 VALID FROM 28.12.2004 TO 27.12.2005 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.G BHARADWAJ, MS R SAHA,MR. B J MUKHERJEE,MS.S BISWAS,MR.B J MUKHERJEE,MR.J SINGH,MS.D GUPTA Advocate for the Respondent : MR. A J SAIKIA, MR.K BORAH(R-3),MR.U K DUTTA(R-3) Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025 Date of Judgment : 29.05.2025 Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG Judgment & Order (CAV) Heard Mr. B.J. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant. I have also heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3, the New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2. The MAC Case No. 158/2005 filed by the claimant/appellant was allowed by the Member of the MACT Golaghat through its judgment and award dated 10.10.2012, whereby compensation of Rs. 6,56,000/- was awarded along with interest at 6% per annum in favour of the claimant/appellant for the injury (disability of 55%) suffered by him. 3. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed this appeal seeking an enhancement of the awarded amount. The appellant contends that the learned Tribunal did not consider the source and the actual established income of the claimant and awarded the compensation based on a notional income. 4. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 02.08.2005, at about 2:45 PM, the offending vehicle No. AS-01-U/4274 (Hyundai Accent), coming from Nagaon at high speed, knocked down the claimant Sri Dipankar Paul (the appellant) and Sri Panku Das while they were travelling towards Hatikhuli Tea Estate on a motorcycle bearing No. AS-05/A- 9460. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Both the appellant and Panku Das sustained grievous injuries, and their motorcycle was completely damaged. The appellant was Page No.# 3/8 immediately admitted to Bokakhat PHC, then transferred to Jorhat Civil Hospital, and was subsequently referred to Patna for further treatment. At the time of filing the claim petition, he was still under treatment. He suffered a physical disability of 55% due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The claimant was a goldsmith by profession and used to run a jewellery shop before the accident. His annual income was Rs. 1,17,500/-. 5. The claim petition was contested. During trial, the claimant's side examined three witnesses, including the claimant himself (CW-1), Sri Tribeni Paul (CW-2), and Dr. Sayed Nazim Hussain (CW-3). The insurer of the offending vehicle (Hyundai Accent) did not adduce any evidence. However, the insurer of the motorcycle (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.) presented the evidence of Sri Swapan Kumar Bhattacharjee (DW-2) to establish that they were not liable to pay compensation, as the insured vehicle was not the offending vehicle. 6. The learned Tribunal, upon conclusion, disposed of two claim cases—MAC Case No. 158/2005 and MAC Case No. 159/2005—by a single judgment and order dated 10.10.2012. The present appeal pertains only to the judgment in MAC Case No. 158/2005. 7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues during the trial: (i) Whether the claim petitions are maintainable in their present form? (ii) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. AS-01-U/4274 (Hyundai Accent) and the motorcycle at Rangajan near Kohora under Bokakhat Police Station on 02.08.2005? Page No.# 4/8 (iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, what is the amount and from whom? 8. The Tribunal decided Issue No. 1 in the affirmative, holding the claim petitions to be maintainable. Issue No. 2 was also decided in the affirmative, establishing that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently, causing the accident. The appellant/claimant has no grievance regarding the Tribunal’s findings on Issues Nos. 1 and 2. 9. However, on Issue No. 3, concerning the quantum of compensation, in respect of the claimant’s case, the Tribunal assessed the amount at Rs. 6,56,000/- to be paid by the opposite party (New India Assurance Co. Ltd.) along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition, i.e., from 09.12.2005, until full realization. The appellant contends that the Tribunal’s decision on this issue was erroneous and made without considering vital evidence presented by the claimant. Consequently, he is dissatisfied with the quantum of the award. 10. At the outset, the appellant’s counsel clarified that the facts of the case in MAC Case No. 158/2005 are not disputed. 11. The appellant’s counsel argued that the Tribunal, while discussing the evidence, noted that although the claimant claimed to be a goldsmith with a jewellery shop, the shop’s name was not mentioned in the petition or affidavit. Based on this, it was presumed he had no jewellery shop. Additionally, the Tribunal observed that the claimant did not submit his PAN card number, leading to the conclusion that his claim of being an income tax payer was unproven. As a result, the Tribunal adopted a notional income of Rs. 3,000/- for calculating compensation, considering the 55% disability. Page No.# 5/8 12. The appellant contends that this approach was erroneous because the Tribunal overlooked the claimant’s evidence. Specifically, the claimant produced an income tax certificate from 2004-2005, showing an annual income of Rs. 1,17,500/- (Exhibit No. 16). This indicates a monthly income of approximately Rs. 9,792, which the Tribunal failed to consider. 13. Further, the appellant submitted that the trading license and registration certificate of his jewellery shop (Exhibits Nos. 17 and 17(1)) clearly established that he owned a jewellery shop at the time of the accident. These documents contained all necessary details, including his PAN number. The Tribunal’s oversight of these documents was a significant error. 14. The appellant’s counsel also submitted that the physical disability certificate, proved by CW-3, confirmed a permanent disability of 55%. Given the nature of his skilled profession as a jeweller, this disability would have adversely affected his earning capacity by at least 55%. 15. The counsel further argued that the claimant is entitled to future prospects, as per applicable principles laid in Sidram Vs. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr; reported in [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 968]. Since he was 35 years old and self-employed, the claimant is entitled to 40% addition to his income for future prospects as per National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in [2017 (16) SCC 680]. Based on the decision of relevant legal principles, the calculation should be as follows: -Yearly income: Rs. 1,17,500/- Future prospects (40%): Rs. 47,000/-Total annual income including future prospects: Rs. 1,64,500/- Multiplier: 16 (since the age is 35), Disability: 55%The loss of income due to disability should be calculated accordingly. Page No.# 6/8 16. The counsel for the respondent insurance company acknowledged that the income tax return (Exhibit No. 16) was for the year 2003-2004, whereas the accident occurred in 2005. He argued that the relevant income tax return for 2004-2005 should have been produced for accurate assessment. Since it was not produced, the Tribunal’s consideration of the earlier year’s return was justified. 17. The respondent’s counsel also admitted that the claimant’s jewellery shop documents [Exhibits Nos. 17 and 17(1)] were on record and that the claimant had a source of income. He agreed to accept a maximum monthly income of Rs. 7,500 instead of Rs. 3,000 as initially assessed. He further agreed that the claimant is entitled to a future prospects’ addition of 40%, but no interest should be awarded on this future income. The respondent’s counsel also agreed that the multiplier should be 16, not 17, as has been considered by learned Tribunal. 18. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence and the Tribunal’s judgment, I find that the Tribunal’s reasoning regarding the income assessment was flawed, given the evidence produced. 19. The record shows that the claimant produced his income tax certificate for 2003-2004, indicating an annual income of Rs. 1,17,500/-, with his PAN number clearly reflected. The Tribunal failed to consider this evidence. 20. Additionally, the jewellery shop registration and license Page No.# 7/8 documents [Exhibits Nos. 17 and 17(1)] establish that the claimant owned a jewellery shop at the time of the accident, containing all relevant details, including his PAN number. The Tribunal overlooked these documents. 21. The physical disability certificate (Exhibit 13), proved by CW-3, confirms a permanent disability of 55%. This disability would have significantly impacted his earning capacity. 22. Considering the mutual agreement of the parties, the evidence, and applicable principles, the award is modified as follows: -Monthly income: Rs. 7,500/- -Annual income: Rs. 90,000/- - Future prospects (40%): Rs. 36,000/- - Total annual income including future prospects: Rs. 1,26,000 - Multiplier: 16. - Disability: 55% The total loss of income due to disability is calculated as: Rs. 1,26,000 × 16 × 55% = Rs. 11,08,800/- The rest of the award remains as follows: -Medical expenses: Rs. 3,00,000/- - Pain and suffering: Rs. 20,000/- Thus, the total compensation amounts to: Rs. 11,08,800 + Rs. 3,00,000 + Rs. 20,000 = Rs. 14,28,800/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Twenty-Eight Thousand Eight Hundred) only. 23. The compensation shall carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition (09.12.2005) until full Page No.# 8/8 realization. No interest shall be awarded on the future prospects’ component. 24. Accordingly, the judgment and award dated 10.10.2012 are modified as indicated above. 25. The respondent, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with interest up to date before the learned Tribunal at Golaghat within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of this order. The amount shall be paid to the claimant upon proper identification, in accordance with the judgment. 26. The appeal is allowed to the extent as indicated above and disposed of accordingly. 27. The record, if any, shall be returned. JUDGE Comparing Assistant "