Gauhati High Court
MACApp./41/2023 on 18 May, 2026
Page |1
GAHC010238122022
2026:GAU-AS:6852
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MAC App./41/2023
1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. A
Company Registered and
Incorporated Under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered
Office At
Oriental House, A-25/27 Asaf Ali
Road, New Delhi- 2
With One Of Its Regional Office At
G.S. Road, Ulubari, Guwahati- 7,
Represented By its Regional
Manager
........Appellant
-Versus-
1. Niru Saikia
W/O Purnanda Saikia,
Village - Khatargaon, Nomi,
P.O.- Nagaon, P.S.- Nagaon Sadar,
District - Nagaon, Assam, Pin- 782001.
2. Usha Saikia
W/O Sanjib Saikia
Village - Khatargaon Nomi
P.O.- Nagaon P.S.- Nagaon Sadar
District - Nagaon Assam Pin- 782001.
MACApp.41/2023 Page 1
Page |2
3. Ranjit Nath
S/O Pulesh Nath
Village - Lungpung Gaon
P.O. and P.S.- Kamrup
Dist.- Nagaon Assam Pin- 782426
......Respondents
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA Advocate for appellants : Mr. R. C. Paul, Advocate Advocate for respondents : Mr. I. A. Talukdar, Advocate Date on which judgment is : 20.01.2026 reserved Date of pronouncement of : 18.05.2026 judgment Whether the : N/A pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment Whether the full judgment : Yes has been Pronounced Judgment & Order
1. Heard Mr. R. C. Paul, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondents /claimants.
2. This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited MACApp.41/2023 Page 2 Page |3 impugning the judgment and award dated 23.08.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon in the MAC Case No. 249/2006, whereby, the appellant was directed to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 20,17,856/- to the claimants along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are that one Sanjeev Saikia was a professional driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS01Y5127 (Tata mobile pick-up van), which is a goods carrying vehicle. On 26.03.2006, some miscreants had hired the said vehicle with an intention to commit theft of the vehicle and when the vehicle was going towards Changjurai Potiapam reserve for loading vegetables, the miscreants killed the driver and the handyman and committed theft of the said vehicle. However, the villagers appeared at the place of occurrence and apprehended the two of the miscreants involved in the incident. In this regard, an FIR was lodged and Jamunamukh Police Station Case No. 5/2006 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.
4. Thereafter, the mother, the father and the widow of the deceased Sanjeev Saikia filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, seeking compensation for death of their son/husband. The said case was registered as MAC Case No. 249/2006.
5. The present appellant contested the claims case by filing a written statement, wherein it took the usual defences which are available to Insurance Company under the law. It also took the plea of non-maintainability of the application under Section 166 MACApp.41/2023 Page 3 Page |4 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed the following issues:
i. Whether the claim petition is maintainable? ii. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle No. AS01Y5127 (mobile pick-up van)?
iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation, and if so, to what extent and who is liable to pay the same?
iv. To what reliefs/reliefs are the parties entitled to?
6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, by judgment dated 11.03.2015, had dismiss the claim case filed by the claimants mainly on the ground that the claimants have failed to show any negligence or fault on the part of the driver or owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, it was held that they are not entitled to get relief under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
7. The Tribunal also held that as the annual income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- the claim case also cannot be converted into a case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in view of the clear bar to that effect laid down in law and clarified by the Apex Court in the case of "Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited" reported in (2004) 05 SCC 385.
8. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, the mother of the deceased approached this Court by filing an MACApp.41/2023 Page 4 Page |5 appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The said appeal was registered as MAC Appeal No. 189/2015.
9. By its judgment dated 07.03.2022, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court had set aside the judgment dated 11.03.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon in MAC Case No. 249/2006 and allowed the appeal by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another"
reported in (2000) 5 SCC 113. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation because of the death of the deceased and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for passing a fresh judgment in light of the observations made in the said judgment.
10. In pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in the aforementioned judgment, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon after getting the case back on remand, heard the learned counsel for both sides and delivered a fresh judgment on 23.08.2022 by allowing the claim petition of the claimants and directing the present appellant to pay a compensation amount of Rs. 20,17,856/- along with an interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
11. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, the Insurance Company has again approached this Court by filing the instant appeal.
12. Mr. R. C. Paul, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, in the impugned judgment which was passed by it after remand of the case back to it, has erred in computing the compensation MACApp.41/2023 Page 5 Page |6 payable to the claimants under the provisions of Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. He submits that since the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the computation of the compensation payable to the claimants cannot be done under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
13. He submits that the claimants could have opted for seeking compensation under Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and could have filed claim application before the Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, Nagaon. However, when they have elected to pursue remedy under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, they cannot fall back again under the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and the Tribunal has erred in mixing up two jurisdictions and has acted beyond jurisdiction by awarding compensation to the claimants under the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since in the instant case, a case under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered as Jamunamukh Police Station Case No. 5/2006 and since the deceased died due to commission of murder by the miscreants, the same cannot be regarded as an accident arising out of use of a vehicle, therefore, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon does not have any jurisdiction to grant compensation in such cases. He submits that even if it is taken to be a case of accidental murder arising out of the use of a vehicle, the claimants have failed to relieve the burden that there was any fault or negligence on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle involved in this case.
MACApp.41/2023 Page 6
Page |7
15. He submits that in absence of any fault on the part of driver or owner of the vehicle involved in the accidental murder, they cannot be held liable to pay compensation. He submits that the liability to pay compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a fault liability, he submits that the Tribunal has to first arrive at the conclusion that driver or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident were at fault, only thereafter, they may be made liable to pay any compensation. However, in the instant case, he submits that the claimants have failed to relieve the said burden.
16. He also submits that the case in hand can also not be converted into a claim case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, where there is no necessity of relieving the burden of proving fault on the part of the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in this case. He submits that in the instant case, the evidence on record clearly shows that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 4,000/- and accordingly, the annual income of the deceased crosses the bar of Rs. 40,000/- per annum, which is to be considered for invoking jurisdiction under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that though the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed in MAC Appeal No. 189/2015 has allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another"
(Supra). However, it failed to take into consideration the fact that in the case of "Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India MACApp.41/2023 Page 7 Page |8 Assurance Company Limited and Another (Supra) the claim case, with which the Apex Court was dealing, was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, whereas, in the instant case, the claim case has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. He further submits that though the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the claimants are entitled to compensation because of the death of the deceased, however, it has not stated in the aforesaid judgment as to under what provision the claimants are entitled to compensation. He submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon has also erred in directing the appellants to pay the compensation without ascertaining as to whether its liability has arisen to pay compensation under Section 166 or under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
18. He submits that without doing so, the Tribunal had fallen back on the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, which is a clear error of jurisdiction on the part of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon is liable to be set aside. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has cited following rulings:
i. Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another reported in 2000 (5) SCC 113 ii. United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. H. Lalhmingliana and Another reported in 2006 2 GLT 538 MACApp.41/2023 Page 8 Page |9 iii. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Lakshmi Thapa and Others reported in (2014) 5 GLT 691 iv. New India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Purnima Singha reported in 2016 0 Supreme (GAU) 85 v. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 vi. National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680.
19. On the other hand, Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has submitted that the son/husband of the claimants expired in an accidental murder when he was driving the mobile pickup van and he did not have any enmity with anyone. He further submits that in the said accidental murder not only the driver of the said vehicle was killed but the handyman was also killed, which indicates that the miscreants who killed the deceased Sanjeev Saikia had no personal enmity with him but he was killed only while the miscreants were committing the theft of the vehicle and, as such, the murder of the deceased Sanjeev Saikia was not a murder simpliciter but an accidental murder arising out of use of the vehicle, therefore, he submits that such an accidental murder may be compensated under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as held by the Apex Court in the case of "Rita Devi and Others Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another"
(Supra).
20. Mr. I. A. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants, however, very fairly submits that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon has erred in applying the criteria for MACApp.41/2023 Page 9 P a g e | 10 computing compensation under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. He submits that as the claim case was filed by the claimants under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal could not have fallen back upon the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. He submits that though, the claimants had the option of preferring remedy against under any of the aforementioned statute, however, once they opt for a particular statute, remedy against another statute cannot be granted. In support of his submission, he has cited a recent ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "Mohammad Masood Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Another" (Civil Appeal No. 12567/2024, judgment dated 26.09.2025).
21. The learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the claimants are struggling to get compensation in a genuine case of death of their son/husband for last more than 20 years and in the meanwhile, one of the claimants, namely, the father of the deceased, has already expired. He further submits that since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 are both beneficial legislations, he prays for granting compensation to the claimants under the appropriate law, taking into consideration beneficial aspects of both the statutes as well as peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.
22. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides.
MACApp.41/2023 Page 10
P a g e | 11
23. On going through the impugned judgment dated 23.08.2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon after the case was remanded back to it, it appears that in paragraph No. 9 of the said judgment, it formulated the following points for determination:
i. Whether the deceased was an employee of opposite party No.1?
ii. Whether the deceased died in the course of his employment while driving the vehicle No. AS01Y5128 (Mobile pick-up van) on a public way? iii. Whether the death of the deceased was due to use of a vehicle in a public way?
iv. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation?
v. To what amount the claimants are entitled to and who will be liable to pay the said amount?
24. On a bare perusal of the points for determination formulated by the tribunal in the impugned judgment, it appears that it has not framed any issue as regards the determination of fault on the part of the driver or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, which was done earlier by the Tribunal while passing the judgment in the MAC Case No. 249/2006, at the first instance, on 11.03.2015. At that time, it formulated the Issue No. 2 which has already been mentioned in paragraph No. 5 hereinbefore, which is an important issue to be decided in adjudicating an application under Section 166 of the Motor MACApp.41/2023 Page 11 P a g e | 12 Vehicle Act, 1988. However, in the impugned judgment which was passed by the Tribunal after the remand of the case, no such issue has been formulated.
25. It is also pertinent to take note of the fact that even after the remand of the case back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, it was adjudicating an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and not a claim application under the provision of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. This Court is of the considered opinion that the points for determination No. 2 formulated by the Tribunal, after the case was remanded back to it, is not relevant while considering an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. It appears that the Tribunal has erred in not formulating a point for determination with regard to the fault liability as is necessary in adjudication under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
26. Further, though, the Tribunal in paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment has observed that the appropriate provision applicable to the facts of the instant case is Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, read with Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 and have converted the claim case into Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, however, this Court is of the opinion that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon has wrongly interpreted the provision of Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
27. The provision contained in Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is quoted herein below:
"167. Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 MACApp.41/2023 Page 12 P a g e | 13 (8 of 1923) where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives rise to a claim for compensation under this Act and also under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled to compensation may without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both".
28. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision would indicate that it is for the claimant to opt for seeking relief either under Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 or under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, where on the death of a person or bodily injury to any person give rise to a claim under both the Acts. The provision contained in Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is an enabling provision for the claimant to opt for any of the two Acts. However, when the claimant has opted for one of the Acts, in the instant case Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for seeking compensation, he cannot fall back again upon the other Act, i.e., Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Neither the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can treat an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, to be an application under the provisions of the Workmen Compensation Act and adjudicate the claim case as if it is adjudicating an application under Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 clearly lays down a bar for the claimant to seek compensation under both the Acts, i.e., Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as well as Workmen Compensation Act, 1923.
MACApp.41/2023 Page 13
P a g e | 14
29. Since the forum for seeking relief under both the Acts are separate forums exercising jurisdiction in different spheres, once the claimant chooses his option to exercise to seek compensation under a particular Act, the forum recognized by the provisions of the said Act shall only have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such a claim. The Tribunal in the instant case has erred in converting the claim case under Section 167 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, as if it is dealing with a claim case under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.
30. Though, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed that claimants are entitled to compensation, however, it has not clarified as to under what provision said compensation may be granted. Otherwise also, the claimant's case for compensation is not foreclosed as they are also entitled to get compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme of the Government. They can still pray for compensation under the Victim Compensation Scheme of the Government or for that matter under any other law which enables them to do so.
31. However, to claim compensation under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, it has to be first ascertained that whether their case falls under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, or under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.
32. In the instant case, considering the facts involved in the case, though, it can be said that the death of deceased Sanjeev Saikia was due to the result of an accidental murder and not a murder simpliciter, and thus, a claim under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is maintainable, however, to get MACApp.41/2023 Page 14 P a g e | 15 compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which is enacted on the basis of fault-based liability, the burden of proving the fault of the driver or owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is on the claimant. In the instant case, said burden could not be relieved, and, therefore, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has erred in directing the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimants without giving a finding, as regards the fault or negligence on the part of either the driver of the offending vehicle or the owner of the offending vehicle. It is pertinent to mention that in its previous judgment dated 11.03.2015, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has decided the said issue in negative.
33. The facts of the case in hand also do not justify converting the claim case of the claimants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 as the annual income of the deceased was more than Rs. 40,000/- per annum, which was the outer limit of the annual income of the deceased for filing an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The said position of law has also been clarified by the Apex Court in the case of "Deepal Girishbhai Soni and Others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited" (Supra).
34. As regards the question of applying the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 by the Tribunal for computation of the compensation payable to the claimants, the same is not the correct approach as the Apex Court has observed in the case of "Mohammad Masood Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited and Another" (Supra) that once the remedy under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 was elected to be MACApp.41/2023 Page 15 P a g e | 16 pursued by the claimant and the Tribunal adjudicated the compensation, applying the criteria and fixing the income falling back upon the parameters under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 was not permissible.
35. Therefore in the instant case also the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had erred in deciding the claims case filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 on the basis of the criteria laid down under Section 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 hence, the impugned judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon is not sustainable.
36. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, the impugned judgment passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon by awarding compensation to the claimants under the provision of Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is liable to be set aside.
37. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is hereby set aside and this appeal is allowed.
38. Send back the records of the MAC Case No. 249/2006 to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon along with a copy of this Judgment.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by Amita Sharma
Date: 2026.05.19 16:46:38 +05'30'
MACApp.41/2023 Page 16