1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury F.M.A. 855 of 2025 National Insurance Co. Ltd. VERSUS Aloka Bauri & Ors. For the appellant/Insurance Company: For the respondents/claimants: Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Ali Imam Shah, Adv. Last Heard on: July 15, 2026 Judgment on: July 24, 2026 Biswaroop Chowdhury, J: The Appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 17th February 2025 passed by Learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Suri Birbhum in MAC Case No. 236 of 2019. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus; 2 On 21-03-2014 at about 4.30 p.m.while the victim Dhiren Bauri was proceeding towards Raniganj Market for marketing from his residence by riding his Motor cycle bearing Registration No. WB-38/AC-9577 as a Pillion rider-on the way on NSB Road in between Panjabi More to Anandalok Hospital he fell down from the Motor Cycle as a result the victim sustained serious injury all over his body, immediately he was taken to K.M. hospital for treatment by Panjabi More I/C Police and Local people but the said hospital authority refused to admit him (victim) and thereafter he was taken to District Hospital Asansol for treatment where attending Doctor declared him dead. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the Motor cyclist of the said Motor Cycle. Pursuant to filing of the case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case. Opposite Party Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the Learned Advocates was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows: „Hence it is ORDERED that the claim petition u/s-166 of the M.V. Act is allowed on contest against the O.P. No-2 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. and allowed ex-parte against OP. No. 1 with costs. 3 The OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioners. „The O.P. No. 1 and O.P. No. 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the awarded amount to the petitioners. The petitioner No.1 to 4 do hereby get an award for Rs. 44,54,096/- (Rs. Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Ninety Six) only as compensation and interest on the above @6% per annum from the date of filing of the case i.e. from the date of filing of this application i.e. from 30.08.2019 till realization of the awarded amount. The O.P. No.2 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 44,54,096/-(Rs. Forty Four Lakhs Fifty Four Thousand Ninety Six) only along with accrued interest as mentioned above, by issuing five account payee cheques to tune of Rs. 8,90,819/- only each in favour of the claimants within thirty days from the date of delivery of Judgment. Failing which the O.P. No.2 will have to pay further interest @10% p.a. upon the awarded amount from the date of expiry of thirty days till realization of the awarded amount. In default, the petitioners are at liberty to execute the same in accordance with law. The claimants/petitioners are directed to pay deficit and excess court fees within 15 days from the date of delivery of Judgment. 4 The claimants/petitioners are debarred from obtaining the certified copy of this judgment unless deficit and excess court fees are paid.’ The appellant National Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. and Learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the accident took place on 21-03-2014 and the first information report was lodged on 10-09-2015 which makes the case of the claimants doubtful. Learned Advocate further submits that the claim case was also filed after 5 years which shows lack of bonafide of the claimants. It is also submitted that the victim died due to heart attack as will appear from the record but the claimants have instituted the false case to grab money. Learned Advocate submits compensation awarded is excessive. Learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents submits that the driver and owner of the vehicle was examined who admitted the accident thus the Learned Trial Judge was justified in awarding the compensation. Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decision:- 5 Kanchan Lavanya and ors. VS Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr. Special Leave Petition of 2025 @ Diary No-44210 of 2019. P.Pathmavathi and ors. VS Bharthi Axa. General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. SLP(C) No. 23880 of 2022. (Supreme Court of India). National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Shila Debi and ors. Reported in 2019(4) TAC 178 (Cal). With regard to the first submission of Learned Advocate for the appellant regarding delay in lodging FIR it is held in different judicial pronouncements that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal if the said delay is explained. In the instant case the complainant in the petition under Section 156(3) CrPC filed before Learned Magistrate explained the delay. With regard to delay in filing claim case no such plea of delay in lodging claim case is taken by the Insurance Company in Written Statement and there being no period of limitation in the statute the plea of limitation cannot be taken at this stage. With regard to involvement of vehicle as the vehicle owner and driver admitted the accident there is no scope to deny the involvement of vehicle. 6 In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd VS Shila Devi (Supra) it was observed as follows:- „8. Having heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, at the outset, I find that the present appeals are bereft of any merits. 9. First things first, it would be expedient to refer to the reasons given by the learned Tribunal in deciding the issue No.1 in favour of the claimants, which reads as under:- "5. That, Ld. Counsel for the insurance company has argued that after registration of the FIR, the cancellation report has been filed 2 by the police as the FIR was registered at the instance of Sh. Narender Kumar, S/o Sh. Vijay Pal Singh, brother of Sh. Harbeer Singh, who was driving the ECCO car bearing no. UP-14CF-1876 and who has stated in his statement made to the police that his brother Sh. Harbeer, Singh was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent marnier, and hit the stationary vehicle and because of this reason, the cancellation report has been filed by the police and therefore, insurance company is not liable to make any payment of the compensation. This argument of Ld. Counsel for the insurance company is unsustainable on the ground that if the insurance company believe on the statement of Sh. Narender Kumar then, it has been stated that his brother Sh. Harbeer Singh was driving the vehicle rash and negligent manner and hit the stationary vehicle, 7 even then the negligence of driver of vehicle has been proved. It is pertinent to mention that the insurance company has failed to examine any witness to prove that the cancellation report filed by the police has been accepted by the concerned Ld. Judicial Magistrate. 16. That, in view of the aforesaid discussion and keeping in view the material proved on record, it stands duly proved by way of pre- ponderence of probability that the deceased Smt Sheela met with an 'accident on 28.05.2014 because of rash and negligent driving of Sh Harbeer Singh (who was also died in the said accident), who was driving the vehicle bearing No. UP-14CF-1876. Therefore, issue no. 1 is decided accordingly in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.’ The evidence of the eye witness and the charge-sheet submitted by Police Authority and admission of driver and owner of the vehicle establish the case of the claimants. Now with regard to the plea taken by the Insurance Company that as per evidence of P.W. 4 the injury may be occurred due to fall from bike which may cause heart attack, it is to be remembered that an evidence of a witness cannot be considered in isolation but it is to be considered as a whole. Upon considering the entire evidence it is established that the victim fell down from motor cycle and suffered injury. Thus injury is established. When an injury is established from rash and negligent driving and the injury may cause heart 8 attack the case of the claimant cannot be defeated merely on the evidence of expert that victim died due to heart attack. Upon considering the evidence on record and the decision of the Learned Trial Judge this Court is of the view that the Learned Trial Judge assigned sufficient reasons in allowing the claim case. However with regard to compensation awarded this Court does not find any error with regard to computation of compensation. However as Courts and Tribunals are empowered to award compensation which is just and fair it is necessary to consider some judicial pronouncement in this regard. In the case of Rashmirekha Tripathy and Anr. VS The Branch Manager (legal claims) Sriram General Insurance Limited and ors. (SLP© No. 27220 of 2024) the Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “15. At the outset, we must reiterate that it is settled law that the objective behind the claim process in the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 is to grant „just and fair compensation‟. Recently, a two-judge Bench of this Court in V. Pathmavathi and Ors. v. Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.7 had succinctly summarised this position and observed: “12. We ought to remind ourselves, at the outset, that when an individual dies as a result of a fatal road accident and his distressed dependents apply for compensation either from the owner of the vehicle responsible for the death or the insurance company with whom such vehicle is 9 insured, no amount of money can truly compensate for the loss. Compensation is nothing but a rough estimate, being a token attempt to ease the financial burden on the dependents. Take consortium, for example. It is impossible to put a price on the loss of a loved one's companionship. Spousal, filial or parental compensation are all about acknowledging the emotional void but the payout can never be more than a rough approximation. It is like trying to measure the immeasurable. Considering the income of the deceased, the needs of his dependents and the emotional toll of the loss, the best that can be ensured is that the compensation is fair and reasonable, without being either arbitrary or niggardly. This would be in accord with the foundational principle governing the determination of “just compensation” under Section 168 of the Act. 13. In Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan [(2013) 9 SCC 65], a three- Judge Bench of this Court held that the purpose of award of compensation under section 166 read with section 168 of the Act is to place the distressed dependents of the victim of a fatal road accident, if the victim had been the sole bread earner, in almost the same position financially if he lived his natural span of life. It is obviously not intended to put such distressed dependents in a better financial position in which they would otherwise have been if the accident had not occurred. At the same time, the determination of compensation is not an exact science and the exercise involves an assessment based on estimation and conjectures, here and there, as many imponderable factors and unpredictable contingences have to be taken into consideration. 10 Obviously, award of damages in each case would depend on the particular facts and circumstances of the case but the element of fairness in the amount of compensation so determined is the ultimate guiding factor.” In the instant case as the victim was employed in Government undertaking where there is provision for family pension and compassionate appointment and the claimant/widow of the victim applied for compassionate appointment thus compensation of Rs. 40 Lakhs is just and reasonable. Hence this Appeal FMA-855 of 2025 stands disposed. Judgment and Award dated 17th February 2025 passed by Learned Additional District Judge Fast Track Court Suri Birbhum in MAC Case No. 236 of 2019 stands modified to the extent that the claimants/Respondents are entitled to Rs. 40,00,000/- from the Appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. The Appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit Rs. 40,00,000/- along with interest @6% p.a. from date of filing claim case till today. In the event compensation awarded by Learned Trial Court is deposited no further deposit be made. The claimants/respondents are entitled to withdraw the compensation on compliance of necessary formalities. Balance amount with accrued interest be returned to the application. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)