The Gauhati High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by New India Assurance Company Ltd., which had challenged a compensation award of ₹94,000 granted to an accident victim by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Kamrup. Justice Mitali Thakuria held that the insurance company failed to prove its allegations of contributory negligence and a fake driving licence, letting the tribunal’s 2017 order stand.
The case stems from a 2013 road mishap near Nellie Overbridge on National Highway 37, where a speeding truck hit a small car head-on, injuring one occupant, Munindra Mohan Kalita.
Background
According to the case records, Kalita was travelling from Nagaon to Guwahati in a Chevrolet Spark when a truck (AS-01/BC-8671) allegedly came from the opposite direction at high speed and on the wrong side, ramming into the car. The collision left Kalita seriously injured, prompting him to seek compensation before the MACT.
In 2017, the Tribunal awarded ₹94,000 along with 6% annual interest, directing the insurer of the truck-New India Assurance-to pay. The vehicle’s owner and driver did not contest the case, leading to an ex parte proceeding.
Unhappy with the ruling, the insurer appealed to the High Court, claiming that both vehicles were equally responsible for the accident and that the driver of the truck possessed a forged licence.
Court’s Observations
During the hearing, counsel for the insurer, Mr. A. Acharya, argued that since it was a head-on collision on a straight road, both drivers should share liability. He also asserted that the truck driver’s licence was fake, citing an internal verification report from the District Transport Office (DTO), Ukhrul, Manipur.
However, Justice Thakuria noted that no official from the DTO had been examined to prove that report, rendering the claim unsubstantiated. “Merely because the vehicles collided head-on, it cannot be presumed that both drivers were negligent,” the bench observed.
The judge emphasised that the evidence presented by the claimant-who stated that the truck had come from the wrong direction at high speed-remained unchallenged in cross-examination. “There was no evidence to rebut that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck,” she said.
The Court also found the insurer’s defence inconsistent, pointing out that the plea of a forged licence was raised belatedly through an additional written statement.
Referring to a recent Supreme Court precedent (Rajo Devi vs Amanjeet Kaur, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1174), the judge reminded that contributory negligence must be proven through evidence, not assumption.
Decision
In her closing order, Justice Thakuria upheld the Tribunal’s findings in full, ruling that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation to the injured claimant. “This Court finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the learned Member, MACT No.1, Kamrup,” she stated.
The appeal was dismissed, and the insurer was allowed to withdraw its statutory deposit of ₹25,000.
With this, the 12-year legal battle for Munindra Mohan Kalita concluded in his favour - a small but clear reaffirmation of accountability for negligent driving on Assam’s highways.
Case: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Munindra Mohan Kalita & Ors
Case Number: MACApp. No. 590 of 2017
Appellant: New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Respondent: Munindra Mohan Kalita and others
Date of Judgment: 23 October 2025