HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA

AGARTALA

MAC App. No.14 of 2024

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited

Represented by the Assistant Manager cum Officer

in Legal Hub, Agartala, Division Office, H.G.B. Road,

(Near Sarkar Nursing Home), Agartala, West Tripura

---- Appellant(s)

Versus

1. Sri Judhisthir Das,

S/o. Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of South Sarat Palli, Khas Noagaon

R.K. Nagar, Khayarpur, West Tripura

2. Sri Jatindra Das,

S/o. Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of TRTC Para, P.S. Ambassa, Dhalai.

3. Sri Haridhan Das

S/o. Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Mohar Cherra, Khowai.

4. Smt. Jagat Rani Das

W/O Sri Shyamal Das

D/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Khayarpur, R.K. Nagar, West Tripura

5. Sri Arjun Das

S/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Mohar Cherra, Khowai

6. Smt. Padma Das

W/O Sri Swapan Das

D/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Debichara, Dhalai.

7. Sri Barun Chandra Das

S/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Mohar Cherra, Khowai

8. Smt. Tarulata Das

W/O Sri Birendra Das

D/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Dwarikapur, Teliamura

VERSUS

----Claimants-Respondent(s)

9. Sri Hari Kumar Jamatia

S/O Lt. Sachindra Kumar Jamatia

Of Khamarbari, Hadrai

P.S.- Teliamura, District- Khowai

(Owner of TR-01-M-4501, Motor Cycle)

-----Respondent

Page 2 of 15

along with

CO(FA) No.03 of 2024

1. Sri Judhisthir Das,

S/o. Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of South Sarat Palli, Khas Noagaon

R.K. Nagar, Khayerpur, West Tripura

2. Sri Jatindra Das,

S/o. Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of TRTC Para, P.S. Ambassa, Dhalai.

3. Sri Haridhan Das

S/o. Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Mohar Cherra, Khowai.

4. Smt. Jagat Rani Das

W/O Sri Shyamal Das

D/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of R.K. Nagar, Khayarpur, West Tripura

5. Sri Arjun Das

S/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Mohar Cherra, Khowai

6. Smt. Padma Das

W/O Sri Swapan Das

D/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Devicherra, Dhalai.

7. Sri Barun Chandra Das

S/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Mohar Cherra, Khowai

8. Smt. Tarulata Das

W/O Sri Birendra Das

D/O Lt. Durga Charan Das

Of Dwarikapur, Teliamura, Khowai.

---- Claimant Respondent Cross-objectors

VERSUS

1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

Represented by the Assistant Manager cum Officer

in Legal hub, Agartala Division Office,

H.G.B. Basak Road (near Sarkar Nursing Home)

Agartala, West Tripura

2. Sri Hari Kumar Jamat ia,

S/O Late Sachindra Kumar Jamatia

Of Khamarbari, Hadrai, P.S. Teliamura,

District- Khowai Tripura

(Owner of TR-01-M-4501 Motor Cycle).

---- Respondents

Page 3 of 15

In MAC App. No.14 of 2024

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prahallad Kr. Debnath, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Adv,

Mr. Tanmay Debbarma , Adv.

In CO(FA) No.03 of 2024

For Cross-objector(s) : Mr. Asutosh De, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prahallad Kr. Debnath, Adv.

Date of hearing : 07.02.2026

Date of delivery of

Judgment & Order : 11.02.2026

Whether fit for

reporting : YES

HON’BLE MR . JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

Judgment & Order

Both the MAC App. No.14 of 2024 and the CO(FA)

No.03 of 2024 have arisen out of a common judgment and

award for which both the matters are take n up together for

hearing and disposal and by this common judgment, this appeal

and CO(FA) are disposed of.

02. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. P. Kr. Debnath appearing

on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company in MAC App.

No.14 of 2024 and Learned Counsel, Mr. A. De for the claimants

and also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. A. De in the CO(FA) as the

cross-objector on behalf of the claimants and Learned Counsel,

Mr. P. Debnath appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company .

03. The appeal is preferred by the Insur ance Company

under Section 173 of M.V. Act for quashing/setting aside the

judgment delivered by Learned Member, MAC Tribunal No.4,

Page 4 of 15

West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) No.248 of 2019 and the

CO(FA) is filed by the respondent -claimant-petitioners under

Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC against the appeal filed under Section

173 of M.V. Act by the Insurance Company for enhancement of

the award. By the judgment and award Learned Tribunal has

awarded compensation amounting to Rs.9,27,600/ - along with

9% simple interest per annum w.e.f. 20.12.2019 i.e. from the

date of filing the claim-petition to till the date of realization.

04. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the

appellant-Insurance Company submitted that in memo of

appeal the grounds have been projected by the appellant-

Insurance Company. In para (d) of the memo of appeal, it was

stated that at the time of accident the driver of the bike was in

drunken condition and he was driving the motor bike with two

pillion riders who were seated behind the said bike and in

course of police investigation, the said fact also revealed but

the Learned Tribunal did not consider the same. Furthermore,

before the Tribunal, the owner could not produce the valid

driving license of the deceased and the police report also

specifically stated that the driver had no valid driving license on

that relevant point of time at the time of accident, but the

Learned Tribunal did not consider the said fact. Furthermore,

the Insurance Company collected a report on RTI that the

driving license of the driver was fake and in absence of valid

driving license, there was no scope on the part of the Tribunal

to award any compensation in favour of the claimants fastening

Page 5 of 15

the liability of compensation upon the Insurance Company for

which the judgment of the Learned Tribunal below needs to be

interfered with.

It was further submitted that by the judgment and

award Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.

Rs.9,27,600/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the claim-

petition to till the date of realization, which according to

Learned Counsel was beyond the several judgments of Hon‟ble

Supreme Court. It was also submitted that even at present the

rate of interest of the National Banks is less than 7%. In such a

situation, the Tribunal without considering the present market

interest rate has awarded 9% interest for which the judgment

of the Learned Tribunal suffers from infirmities and the same

needs to be interfered with. Learned Counsel for the appellant

in course of hearing further submitted that towards the loss of

consortium, Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,20,000/ - for eight

petitioners who were not dependent upon the income of the

deceased and as such in view of the judgment of Hon‟ble

Supreme Court, there was no scope to award that much

amount towards the head loss of consortium, it should be only

Rs.40,000/- and also prayed for taking note of the said

submission.

05. On the other hand, Learned Counsel, Mr. A. De

appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 i.e. the owner of

the motor bike bearing No.TR-01-M-4501 who was examined as

OPW1 produced all the relevant documents of the vehicle

Page 6 of 15

including the driving license of the driver submitted that the

owner before the Tribunal exhibited the driving license of the

rider Sumen Jamatia which was marked as Exhibit-D without

any objection from the present Insurance Company and

furthermore, the said document in course of investigation was

seized by I.O. Even in the pleadings submitted by the appellant-

Insurance Company, there was not a single whisper that the

document was fake and fabricated and no evidence was

adduced in this regard as witness to substantiate the same nor

any witness of the Transport Department from Nagaland is

adduced as witness to substantiate that the driving license was

a „fake‟ one. Furthermore, the Insurance Company also did not

adduce any oral/documentary evidence on record in this regard

for drawing the attention of the Learned Tribunal Court. As such

according to Learned Counsel, there is no merit in the appeal

filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and urged for

dismissal of the same. Regarding enhancement, Learned

Counsel submitted that admittedly, the claimant-petitioners are

village rustic people and they could not produce and prove any

documentary evidence in respect of the mont hly income of the

deceased. So, Learned Counsel urged before the Court to

consider the notification of this High Court regarding

determination of income in respect of MAC cases and prayed for

enhancement of the award.

Learned Counsel for the claimants fu rther submitted

that in respect of „consortium‟ there are several judgments of

Page 7 of 15

the Supreme Court, where there is provision for awarding three

types of consortium :(a) spousal consortium (b) parental

consortium, (c) filial consortium. So, Learned Tribunal at the

time of determination of compensation rightly awarded the said

amount of „consortium‟ and there was no infirmity to that and

urged for upholding the judgment.

Considered.

06. In this case the claimant -appellants i.e. the

respondents in the MAC Appeal and the objectors in the CO(FA)

filed one claim-petition before the Tribunal with the assertions

that on 08.05.2016 when Chinta Bala Das (Since dead) was

proceeding on foot through Khowai -Teliamura Road at about

4.30 P.M. and while she reached near Moha rcherra School

suddenly one motor cycle bearing No.TR-01-M-4501 which was

coming from Lal Tilla side with high speed in rash and negligent

manner dashed the victim on the road. As a result of which, she

fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries on her

person. Thereafter, she was taken to Teliamura Hospital from

where she was referred to AGMC and GBP Hospital and on the

same day she succumbed to her injuries. Hence, the claimant -

petitioners being the sons and daughters filed the claim -

petition. It was also asserted that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the motor bike rider and it was

also submitted that the deceased was aged about 60 years and

as a maid-servant and from MNREGA, she used to earn

Rs.8,000/- per month. The case was registered as TS(MAC)

Page 8 of 15

No.248 of 2019. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the offending

bike appeared and contested the case by filing written

statement denying the assertions of the claimant -petitioners

and submitted that at the time of accident the rider of the bike

had valid driving license and the vehicle was duly insured with

the present appellant-Insurance Company. The Insurance

Company also filed their written statement denying the

assertion of the claimant-petitioner and further took the plea

that the claim-petition was subjected to strict proof by the

claimants.

07. Upon the pleadings of the parties, Learned

Tribunal below framed the following issues:

I S S U E S

(1) Whether Chinta Bala Das died in a

vehicular accident which all eged to have

been took place on 8.5.2016 at about 4.30

p.m. near Mohorchara School on Khowai –

Teliamura Road under Teliamura P.S.

Khowai District due to rash and negligent

driving of motor cycle beari ng No. TR-01-

M4501 by its rider?

(2) Whether the claimant petitioners being

the sons and daughters of the deceased,

are entitled to get compensation, if so, upto

what extent and who shall be liable to pay

the same?

08. To substantiate the issues, from the side of the

claimant-appellant one witness was addu ced and certain

documents were relied upon which were marked as exhibits and

the O.P. owner of the bike was examined as O.P.W 1 and relied

upon some documents which were also marked as exhibits.

Finally, on conclusion enquiry Learned Tribunal below

allowed the claim-petition filed by the claimant-petitioner. The

Page 9 of 15

operative portion of the judgment/order of the Learned Tribunal

below runs as follows:

O R D E R

12. In the result, claim is awarded in following terms: -

(i) Claimant petitioners are entitled to get the

award of Rs. 9,27,600/ - (Rupees nine lakhs twenty

seven thousand six hundred) only along with 9%

simple interest per annum from the date of the

petition i.e. w.e.f. 20.12.2019 till the date of

realization thereof from the O.P. No.2 the Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd.

(ii) 40% of the award of all the claimants be

invested by purchasing separate Fixed Deposit

Certificates from Nationalised Bank for a period of five

years with auto renewal facility and the claimant

petitioners shall open sav ings account in the same

bank. No loan or advance or pre -mature withdrawal

shall be allowed without prior sanction of this

Tribunal. The interest accrued on the fixed deposit

certificates shall be directly transmitted to the

individual savings accounts by the concerned bank.

The concerned bank shall retain the original fixed

deposit certificates and the copies of the certificates to

be handed to all the claimant petitioners. The claimant

petitioners are directed to submit photocopies of their

bank pass book.

(iii) The O.P. No.2 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shall

deposit the amount so ordered along with interest

thereon within one month to this Tribunal from the

date of the order.

(iv) Copy of this order so awarded to be served

upon the parties not later than 15 days from the date

of this award.

(v) The case stands disposed on contest.

09. I have gone through the award of the Learned

Tribunal below very carefully and also perused the record of the

Learned Tribunal including the evidence on record. Admittedly,

in this case, the driving license of the rider of the bike was

proved by the owner and the same was marked as Exhibit-D

without any objection from the Insurance Company. The

appellant-Insurance Company in the written statement

submitted before the Tribunal did not take any specific plea that

the driving license was „fake‟. Even to substantiate their

contention the Insurance Company did not adduce any oral

Page 10 of 15

evidence on record nor proved any documentary evidence on

record. Furthermore, to substantiate the RTI information no

such officer of the Transport Department from Nagaland was

adduced to prove that Exhibit-D was fake and fabricated. Even

before the Tribunal as already stated save and except written

statement, the Insurance Company could not adduce any

oral/documentary evidence on record. Situated thus, the plea

taken by the Insurance Company that the driving license was

fake and the same needs to be cancelled and the judgment

needs to be set aside, cannot be accepted.

Now, regarding „consortium‟ there were numerous

judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Now, let us discuss the five

judges bench Judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. reported in

(2017) 16 SCC 680, wherein in para No.52, the Hon‟ble Apex Court

observed as under:

―52. As far as the conventional heads are

concerned, we find it difficult to agree with the

view expressed in Rajesh [Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh,

(2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4 SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013)

3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 149] . It has

granted Rs 25,000 towards funeral expenses, Rs

1,00,000 towards loss of consortium and Rs

1,00,000 towards loss of care and guidance for

minor children. The head relating to loss of care

and minor children does not exist. Though Rajesh

[Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh, (2013) 9 SCC 54 : (2013) 4

SCC (Civ) 179 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 817 : (2014) 1

SCC (L&S) 149] refers to Santosh Devi [Santosh

Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 6 SCC

421 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 726 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)

160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 167] , it does not seem

to follow the same. The conventional and

traditional heads, needless to say, cannot be

determined on percentage basis because that

would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike

determination of income, the sa id heads have to be

quantified. Any quantification must have a

reasonable foundation. There can be no dispute

Page 11 of 15

over the fact that price index, fall in bank interest,

escalation of rates in many a field have to be

noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious t o the

same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect.

Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in

determination of the same and unless the thumb

rule is applied, there will be immense variation

lacking any kind of consistency as a consequence

of which, the orders passed by the tribunals and

courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we

think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to

us that reasonable figures on conventional heads,

namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000

and Rs 15,000 respectively. The principle of

revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle.

But the revisit should not be fact -centric or

quantum-centric. We think that it would be

condign that the amount that we have q uantified

should be enhanced on percentage basis in every

three years and the enhancement should be at the

rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are

disposed to hold so because that will bring in

consistency in respect of those heads. ‖

From the aforesaid judgment of Pranay Sethi (supra), it

appears that the five judges‟ bench of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

decided consortium at Rs.40,000/-.

09. Thereafter, in another judgment in United India Insurance

Company Limited vs. Satinder Kaur alias Satwinder K aur &

Ors. reported in (2021) 11 SCC 780, wherein in para Nos.28, 29,

30, 31 and 37.12, the Hon‟ble Apex Court observed as under:

―(e) Three conventional heads

28. In Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018 ) 3 SCC

(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , the

Constitution Bench held that in death cases,

compensation would be awarded only under three

conventional heads viz. loss of estate, loss of

consortium and funeral expenses. The Court held

that the conventional and traditional heads, cannot

be determined on percentage basis, because that

would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike

determination of income, the said heads have to be

quantified, which has to be based on a reasonable

foundation. It was observed that factors such as

price index, fall in bank interest, escalation of

rates, are aspects which have to be taken into

consideration. The Court held that reasonable

figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expens es

should be Rs 15,000, Rs 40,000 and Rs 15,000,

respectively. The Court was of the view that the

amounts to be awarded under these conventional

Page 12 of 15

heads should be enhanced by 10% every three

years, which will bring consistency in respect of

these heads:

(a) Loss of estate — Rs 15,000 to be

awarded.

(b) Loss of consortium.

29. Loss of consortium, in legal parlance, was

historically given a narrow meaning to be awarded

only to the spouse i.e. the right of the spouse to

the company, care, help, comfort, guida nce,

society, solace, affection and sexual relations with

his or her mate. The loss of companionship, love,

care and protection, etc., the spouse is entitled to

get, has to be compensated appropriately. The

concept of non -pecuniary damage for loss of

consortium is one of the major heads for awarding

compensation in various jurisdictions such as the

United States of America, Australia, etc. English

courts have recognised the right of a spouse to get

compensation even during the period of temporary

disablement.

30. In Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu

Ram [Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu

Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 :

(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] this Court interpreted

―consortium‖ to be a compendious term, which

encompasses spou sal consortium, parental

consortium, as well as filial consortium. The right

to consortium would include the company, care,

help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the

deceased, which is a loss to his family. With

respect to a spouse, it would inc lude sexual

relations with the deceased spouse.

31. Parental consortium is granted to the child

upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of

parental aid, protection, affection, society,

discipline, guidance and training. Filial consortium

is the right of the parents to compensation in the

case of an accidental death of a child. An accident

leading to the death of a child causes great shock

and agony to the parents and family of the

deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to

lose their child during their lifetime. Children are

valued for their love and affection, and their role in

the family unit.‖

From the aforesaid observation, it appears that in

Magma General Insurance Company Limited, Hon‟ble the Apex

Court interpreted “consortium to be a compendious term, which

encompasses spousal consortium, parental consortium, as well

as filial consortium. The right to „consortium‟ would include the

company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of

Page 13 of 15

the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a

spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased

spouse.” It was further observed that “parental consortium is

granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for

loss of parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline,

guidance and training”.

10. Finally, in the said case in para No.37.12 Hon‟ble

the Apex Court awarded the following amounts under the

conventional heads:

―37.12. Insofar as the conventional heads are

concerned, the deceased Satpal Singh le ft behind a

widow and three children as his dependants. On

the basis of the judgments in Pranay Sethi

[National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi,

(2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 :

(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] and Magma General

[Magma General Insura nce Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram,

(2018) 18 SCC 130 : (2019) 3 SCC (Civ) 146 :

(2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 153] , the following amounts

are awarded under the conventional heads:

(i) Loss of estate : Rs 15,000

(ii) Loss of consortium:

(a) Spousal consortium : Rs 40,000

(b) Parental consortium : 40,000 × 3

= Rs 1,20,000

(iii) Funeral expenses : Rs 15,000 ‖

11. Here in the case at hand, there are/were in total 8

appellants who are the sons and daughters of their deceased

mother, namely, Chinta Bala Das. So, for the eight appellants at

the time of delivery of judgment, Learned Tribunal rightly

awarded compensation under the head “loss of consortium at

Rs.3,20,00/- and in my considered view that was rightly

awarded by the Learned Tribunal below and there is no scope to

interfere with the same. Before the Tribunal as already stated

the claimant-appellants have adduced witness and in support of

Page 14 of 15

the monthly income of the deceased the claimant -objectors

could not prove any documentary evidence on record and after

hearing both the sides, Learned Tribunal determined the

monthly income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month which

was in the considered opinion of this Court was reasonable

because being an MNREGA worker, definitely the deceased

could have earned not less than Rs.8,000 /- per month. So,

there is no infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal regarding

monthly income of the deceased. Even in the objection filed by

the claimants, there was no plea to consider the notification of

this High Court and that notification was for decision of cases in

Lok Adalat. So, the submission of Learned Counsel that the

monthly income of the deceased should be determined as per

notification of this High Court, issued for determination of the

case during Lok Adalat. Even before the Learned Tribunal also

no such plea was taken cannot be accepted.

12. So, in this regard, I find no merit in the cross-objection

filed by the claimant-appellants for enhancement of monthly

income of the deceased. However, on perusal of the judgment

of the Learned Tribunal, it appears that the Learned Tribunal at

the time of delivery of judgment awarded rate of interest @9%

per annum which in my considered opinion was too high,

because in most of the cases, this Court also awarded rate of

interest @7.5%. So, in the considered opinion of this Court, the

rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal needs to be interfered

with, keeping the rest part of the judgment undisturbed.

Page 15 of 15

13. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-

Insurance Company is partly modified to the extent that rate of

interest of @7.5% in place of 9% affirming the judgment and

award delivered by Learned Tribunal by the said judgment

dated 12.07.2023. The appellant-Insurance Company shall pay

the awarded amount of Rs.9,27,600/ - along with interest

@7.5% in place of 9% w.e.f. 20.12.2019 to till the date of

actual realization within a period of two(2) months from the

date of passing of this judgment and shall deposit the amount

to the Learned Tribunal accordingly. If, any amount is paid, that

would be deducted accordingly from the award. The cross-

objection filed by the claimant -appellants as objectors

accordingly stands dismissed being devoid of merit.

With this observation, both the appeal and the cross-

objection are accordingly stands disposed of.

Send back the record to the Learned Trial Court along

with a copy of this judgment/award.

Supply a copy of this judgment/order to Learned

Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company for information

and compliance and also a copy of this order be supplied to

Learned Counsel for the respondent -claimant-petitioners for

information.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Purnita