GUWAHATI, India, June 23 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on May 23:

1. Heard Mr. C. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S. Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Mr. M. Barman, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') challenging the judgment and award dated 19.08.2019 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in MAC Case No.2402/2017 whereby an amount of Rs.12,92,688/- was awarded along with bank interest of fixed deposit from the date of filing of the evidence by the claimant i.e. 19.03.2019.

3. The instant appeal has been preferred primarily on three grounds. First is on the question of quantum that the compensation so awarded was not in terms with Section 168 of the Act of 1988 which stipulates that the compensation so awarded has to be just and reasonable. Mr. C. Phukan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that in the instant case, the future prospect have been held at 40% without proving the income of the deceased by the claimants.

4. The second ground of objection taken is on the question of contributory negligence which was not taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal and thereby saddling the entire liability on the appellant Insurance Company.

5. The third ground of objection so taken is that the claimant No.1 having married off after the death of her husband, she would not be entitled to compensation.

6. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of both the respondents have jointly submitted that both the claimants are entitled to the compensation. The learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that the future prospect which have been granted at 40% is in terms with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. The learned counsels further submitted by drawing the attention of this Court to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanu Ram and Others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130 that in the instant case, the loss of consortium have been granted by the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration that the loss of consortium includes the loss of spousal consortium as well as loss of filial consortium and as such, the amount which have been awarded in the instant case is less.

7. The learned counsels for the respondents further submitted that in terms with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), there is an additional amount which is required to be paid i.e. on account of loss of estate which is Rs.15,000/- have not been paid. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as the spousal consortium, filial consortium and the loss of estate are based upon the law declared by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution, this Court may enhance the compensation as the same would come within the ambit of just and reasonable compensation.

8. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court now take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant appeal.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=%2FE3WiyNUWFIaR1oBGE62Wm452Cf9QBtkNNQ6XMaOpcMYhs%2BOJJl%2BlHH0mL%2BC%2BU%2F0&caseno=MACApp./170/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010289442019&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.