The High Court has clarified that while the Tribunal’s findings on income and compensation remain undisturbed in the absence of contrary evidence, the rate of interest on compensation should be aligned to 7% per annum in accordance with prevailing High Court practice, overruling the Tribunal’s award of 8%. This clarification is binding within the State and is suitable for citation in future MACT interest rate disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
MAC App./141/2024 of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sanchita Debbarma and 05 Ors. CNR: TRHC010021192024 |
| Date of Registration | 31-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Allowed (Partly Allowed/Modified) |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT |
| Court | High Court of Tripura |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within Tripura; clarifies the appropriate applicable rate of interest in MACT compensation awards. |
| Overrules / Affirms | Modifies the MACT judgment regarding interest rate (from 8% to 7% p.a.); does not disturb findings as to income and compensation quantum. |
| Type of Law | Motor Accident Claims (Tort Law / MV Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether the Tribunal erred in assessing the deceased’s income/compensation without documentary proof, and whether granting 8% interest aligns with prevailing judicial norms. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that, in the absence of documentary proof but in light of unchallenged oral evidence and no rebutting evidence by the insurer, the Tribunal’s income determination does not warrant interference. However, consistency with prior and prevailing judicial practice required the awarded interest rate to be modified from 8% to 7% per annum. The insurer’s appeal is allowed only to the extent of modifying the interest rate; all other aspects of the Tribunal’s decision remain unaltered. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The judgment notes the practice of this Court in most cases awarding 7% interest per annum. Specific prior judgments are referenced only in general terms and not by citation. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court considered the lack of documentary income proof and observed the unchallenged nature of the oral evidence, noting the need for Tribunals to give reasons when making income assessments. Consistency in interest rates awarded by the High Court was treated as an important principle for modification. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The claim arose from the death of a 28-year-old man engaged in fishing, who died in a vehicle accident in September 2020. The claimants alleged monthly income of ₹30,000, but could not produce documentary proof. The Tribunal, based on oral evidence, determined monthly income at ₹15,000 and awarded ₹34,43,000 compensation with 8% interest from the date of claim. The insurer appealed on grounds of excessive income determination without proof and a high rate of interest. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and Motor Accident Claims Tribunals within Tripura |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with similar interest rate disputes in MACT appeals |
| Overrules | Modifies the Tribunal’s order on interest rate; sets aside 8% and restores 7% per annum as the appropriate rate |
| Follows | Follows the prevailing line of High Court practice regarding interest rates in MACT awards |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court has reaffirmed that where income is claimed but no certificate or documentary evidence is placed, if oral evidence goes unrebutted by the insurer, the Tribunal’s finding on income may not be easily interfered with in appeal.
- Importantly, the judgment clarifies that the rate of interest on MACT compensation (here, reduced from 8% to 7% per annum) must conform to the current High Court standard, unless clear reason is shown to depart.
- Lawyers should cite this authority in similar appeals or MACT claims where Tribunal interest rates exceed current judicial norms.
- The judgment highlights the need for Tribunals to give specific reasoning for both income determination and interest rates.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court considered the insurer’s contention that no documentary proof supported the deceased’s alleged income, yet noted that the oral evidence of the claimants was both specific and unrebutted.
- The Tribunal’s decision to fix a lower amount (₹15,000 per month, rather than ₹30,000 claimed) was not supported by explicit reasoning, but was considered a reasonable inference given the prevailing local economic context, especially since the appellant led no contrary evidence.
- On the issue of interest, the High Court observed a settled judicial practice within the State of awarding 7% per annum. The Tribunal’s grant of 8% was therefore held to be inconsistent and was modified accordingly.
- The remainder of the Tribunal’s order, including quantum of compensation, was affirmed.
- The court reminded lower tribunals to specifically state their reasoning when fixing income without written proof and when setting interest rates outside the prevailing range.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd.):
- The claimants did not produce any documentary or cogent evidence to support the monthly income of the deceased.
- The Tribunal, without sufficient basis, fixed monthly income at ₹15,000.
- The rate of interest (8% per annum) is higher than the prevailing norm; generally, 7% interest is granted.
Respondent (Claimants):
- It is admitted that no income certificate was produced, but oral testimony established the deceased was earning ₹30,000 per month from fishing.
- The insurer/appellant did not effectively challenge or rebut this oral evidence.
- Even higher rates of interest (up to 9%) have been granted by the Supreme Court; thus, the Tribunal’s grant of 8% interest is not excessive.
Factual Background
The case arose from a fatal vehicle accident on 16 September 2020, in which Kamal Bikash Debbarma, aged 28 and engaged in fishing business, died after a Maxi Cab overturned. The claimants (widow, children, and parents) alleged the vehicle accident was due to negligent driving and applied to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking compensation and claiming a monthly income of ₹30,000 for the deceased. The Tribunal’s award, based on oral evidence but with no documentary proof, fixed monthly income at ₹15,000, granting total compensation of ₹34,43,000 with 8% interest per annum. The insurer appealed, mainly on grounds of excessive income determination without strict proof and the high rate of interest.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: The appeal provision under which the insurer approached the High Court.
- The judgment addressed the application of the standard of proof for income in fatal accident claims under the M.V. Act, stressing the importance of reasoning by Tribunals when documentary proof is lacking.
- The discretion of the Tribunal/High Court to set rates of interest in MACT awards was directly considered, with emphasis on the need for judicial consistency and reference to prevailing trends within the jurisdiction.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinion is provided; the judgment is a single-judge opinion.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment underscored that, where compensation is payable to minors or vulnerable dependents, structured disbursement via fixed deposits and directions for disbursal in accordance with the Tribunal’s award are to be followed — but this follows established MACT procedural safeguards and not a new innovation.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The existing judicial practice regarding interest rates for MACT awards is affirmed and enforced.