Authority: Gauhati High Court (High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh), Kohima Bench

Order Date: 14 July 2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Oriental Insurance Company Ltd (appellant/insurer) versus Shri Lalbabu Mahato (claimant) and two others, Shri Manik Maxumdar and Shri Bhim Mahato (respondents No.2 & 3). The claimant is represented by his brother Shri Naresh Maharo.
  • Case No.: MACApp./20/2025; appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Dimapur judgment dated 16 June 2025 (MACT Case No. 36/2023).
  • Accident Details: On 25‑11‑2022 at about 8:30 PM, the claimant (pillion rider, aged ~33) was on a two‑wheeler (Reg. No. NL‑07/R‑4585) travelling from Saharijan‑Sukhanjan side (Bokajan) towards Lahorijan. The driver, respondent No.3, allegedly drove rashly and the vehicle met with an accident at Paklangso Tiniali on NH‑39. The claimant suffered a grievous head injury resulting in permanent 90 % loco‑motor disability and is now bedridden, unable to speak or move.
  • Claim: Filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before MACT, Dimapur. MACT awarded Rs 57,56,000 (Fifty‑seven lakh fifty‑six thousand) and directed payment within 30 days.
  • Grounds of Appeal by Oriental Insurance:

1. Salary proof: The claimant’s “To Whom It May Concern” note from respondent No.2 (employer) lacked official letterhead, licence numbers, or corroborative payroll records; appellant argued income should be based on notional minimum wages.

2. Disability certificate: The treating doctor(s) were not cross‑examined; appellant cited precedents (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs Lalliansawmi, National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Chandreswar Thakur, Raj Kumar vs Ajay Kumar).

3. Policy breach: The motor‑cycle was covered by a private‑use two‑wheeler package policy; appellant contended the vehicle was used commercially, thus claimant not a third‑party.

4. Excess non‑pecuniary award: Citing Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation, appellant claimed the non‑pecuniary component was excessive.

  • Respondent Arguments:
  • Salary certificate dated 10‑03‑2023, produced by employer (DW‑1) and cross‑examined, proved monthly salary of Rs 18,000.
  • Disability certificate (Ex‑PW‑10) issued by Sub‑Divisional Medical & Health Officer, Karbi Anglong, and corroborated by District Social Welfare Officer; claimant’s Unique Disability ID also reflected 90 % disability.
  • Claimant was a pillion rider, a third‑party entitled to compensation; the vehicle was used to deliver a parcel, not for fare‑paying commercial service.
  • Cited case law (New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Charlie) supporting pillion‑rider compensation.
  • Argued that compensation for loss of future earnings was not awarded and should be enhanced, relying on Nagappa vs Gurudayal Singh and Rajesh vs Rajbir Singh.

Final Outcome

1. Salary: The court held the salary certificate duly proved; monthly salary of Rs 18,000 is accepted.

2. Disability Certificate: Accepted as issued by government authority; not contested at trial; 90 % permanent disability confirmed.

3. Policy: Recognised the package policy as private‑use but accepted that the vehicle was used for parcel delivery, not fare‑paying commercial activity; claimant as pillion rider is a third‑party and entitled to compensation.

4. Award Modification:

  • Set aside the amount awarded under loss of income (head i) as it would duplicate future‑earning loss.
  • Set aside the amount under special aid for attendants (head iii).
  • Upheld amounts under non‑pecuniary heads: medical & nursing expenses, mental & physical shock, inconvenience, loss of expectation of normal life.

5. Remand for Future Earnings: The matter is remanded to the MACT to assess loss of future earnings and attendant expenses (minimum Rs 2 lakh if functional disability is 100 %). The tribunal must examine the treating doctor or a medical board, with the insurer entitled to cross‑examine.

6. Deduction of Paid Amount: The claimant has already received Rs 28,78,000; this amount shall be deducted from the total award to be determined.

7. Procedural Directions:

  • Parties to appear before the MACT on 18 August 2026.
  • Petition disposed with the above directions.
  • Registry to return trial‑court records and refund the statutory deposit of Rs 25,000 to the appellant.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Insurance Law