Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Rashmirekha Sharaniya @ Sarania @ Das ... on 31 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010065742024
2025:GAU-AS:14730
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/980/2024
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AND HEAD OFFICE AT 87, M.G. ROAD,
FORT, MUMBAI AND ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT STAR CITY COMPLEX, 5TH
FLOOR, LACHIT NAGAR NEAR HANUMAN G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781007.
VERSUS
RASHMIREKHA SHARANIYA @ SARANIA @ DAS AND 3 ORS.
W/O LATE NAYANJIT SARANIA @ SHARANIYA,
VILL.- CHUTIAPARA, P.S.- MUSHALPUR, DIST.- BAKSA, BTAD, ASSAM,
PIN- 781372.
2:ANKUR SARANIA @ DAS
S/O LATE NAYANJIT SARANIA @ SHARANIYA
VILL.- CHUTIAPARA
P.S.- MUSHALPUR
DIST.- BAKSA
BTAD
ASSAM
PIN- 781372.
3:ANJAN SARANIA
W/O LATE NAYANJIT SARANIA @ SHARANIYA
VILL.- CHUTIAPARA
P.S.- MUSHALPUR
DIST.- BAKSA
BTAD
ASSAM
PIN- 781372.
Page No.# 2/5
4:RAMA KT. BARMAN
S/O LATE HARO KT @ HARKANTA BARMAN
VILL.- ARARA
P.S.- NALBARI
DIST.- NALBARI
ASSAM
PIN
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS. M SAIKIA,MS. P BORTHAKUR
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
ORDER
Date : 31.10.2025 Heard Ms. P. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. None appears for the respondents on call.
2] Pertinent that on the last occasion, i.e., 11.08.2025 as well, despite service being completed there was no representation on behalf of the respondents for which the matter was posted today. Considering consecutive non-representation on behalf of the respondents, the instant interlocutory application is taken up for final disposal.
3] By way of this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with proviso to Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 as amended, the applicant is seeking condonation of delay of 9 (nine) days in filing the connected MAC Appeal.
4] The ground of delay is stated as under: -
"2. Learned That as the Judgment and Award was passed on 11.12.2023 the last date for filing the appeal is Page No.# 3/5 11.03.2024. But, since appeal has been filed on 20.03.2024, there has been a delay of 9 (nine) days in filing this appeal. It is stated that the Judgment and Award dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Member was forwarded to the Regional Office vide his letter dated 09.01.2024 along with his opinion. The competent authority at the Regional Office after processing gave its approval for filing an appeal on 18.01.2024. The file was given to the engaged advocate for filing the appeal and the cheque dated 30.01.2024 was given to the advocate on 05.02.2024. But unfortunately there was some delay on the part of the advocate owing to health issues of his family could not attend to the file immediately as a result of which the file went out of sight for sometime. However in the process a delay of 9 (nine) days have occurred which was purely unintended and accidental in nature insofar as the Appellant is concerned because the Appellant had on its part had even handed over the cheque dated 30.01.2024 to the advocate. But by the appeal could be filed a delay of 9 (nine) days have occurred.
3. That the applicant/appellant respectfully states that the applicant has good grounds for appeal considering the fact that the applicant /appellant respectfully states that the Learned Member ought to have considered the circular issued by the State Government dated 14.09.2017 in respect of the scheme for Compassionate Family Pension Scheme (CFP) while assessing the loss of dependency which had ultimately resulted in excessive compensation to the claimants. The death of the husband of the claimant(R1) who was admittedly an employee of Government of Assam has occurred on 28.12.2018 i.e after the date when the Scheme becomes applicable to the state of Assam. Hence the claimants are eligible for the benefits under the scheme. As per the CFP scheme the claimants would receive 100% of the last drawn pay instead of 50% as applicable under a normal pension scheme. Since the entire foundation of compensation is basically aimed at mitigating the financial loss suffered by the family of the victim the instant case where the family would not suffer any financial loss at all cannot be equated with a case where after the death of a person the family suffers an actual loss of dependency. It is therefore a fit case for the Hon'ble Court to interfere with and modify the award Page No.# 4/5 taking this new factor of CFP into consideration so that the compensation conforms to the concept of just compensation as envisaged in Sec. 168 of the MV Act without being a bonannza.
The Learned Member failed to appreciate the settled position of law as expressed in Judgments of the Apex Court as well as of this Honourable High Court that the amount receivable by the dependants / claimants towards the head of pay and allowances in the form of ex-gratia financial assistance cannot be paid for the second time to the claimants. It was further held that the harmonious approach for determining a just compensation payable under the Act of 1988, therefore, is to exclude the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the CFP Scheme, 2017 towards the head financial assistance equivalent to "pay and other allowances" that was last drawn by the deceased Government employee in the normal course. The non-exclusion of the amount received or receivable by the dependents of the deceased Government employee under the CFP Scheme, 2017 has resulted in over compensation. The Learned Member ought to have considered the fact that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation on the head of loss of dependency since they are already getting full salary benefits until the date of superannuation of the deceased. As such it is clear that his family members would receive full salary till his retirement date. As such it clearly suggests the fact that the claimant/wife of the deceased has been receiving the full salary of the deceased as pension amount. As such the question of loss of dependency of the claimants does not arise while assessing the amount of compensation. The Learned Member ought to have appreciated the fact that the award of Rs.88,000/- under the head of loss of parental consortium has no basis after the recent Supreme Court judgment in National Insurance Co Ltd vs Pranay Sethy.
4. That the applicant respectfully states that the applicant/appellant by virtue of being an Insurer is in the position of a trustee as it is holding public money for payment of compensation to the proper oper and genuine claimants. Therefore, if this delay, which was not due to his Page No.# 5/5 negligence but due to sufficient cause, is not condoned, it will cause substantial loss of public money and also cause irreparable loss and injury to the applicant/appellant."
5] Reading the aforesaid, it appears that the said delay of 9 days occurred due to some delay on the part of the learned counsel owning to health issues of his family. The explanation as extracted above appears to be sufficient and bonafide. Hence, in the interest of justice, the said delay of 9 days stands condoned.
6] The interlocutory application stands allowed.
7] Register the MAC Appeal.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant