Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 1005 of 2023 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Munmun Mukherjee & Ors.. With COT 75 of 2023 Munmun Mukherjee & Ors. Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. For the Appellant : Ms. Sanjay Paul, Ms. Jaita Ghosh. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashique Mondal, Mr. Anup Kumar Bag. Heard & Judgment on : 22st January, 2025. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present. 2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 14th June, 2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Purba Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No. 79 of 2016 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company owing to the death of the victim, aged 42 Years, in an accident which occurred on 15th 2 February, 2015 at about 6.00 P.M. on NH 2 (near Kalla More) within the jurisdiction of Asansol (North) Police Station. 4. The victim was riding a motorcycle bearing registration number WB WB38-AE/7306 which on its way towards Kalipahari through NH 2 was hit by the offending vehicle being Maruti Van bearing registration number WB 42AA/0946 near Kalla More whereby the victim suffered severe injuries and he was shifted to LMA Asansol Sadar Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Gouri Devi Hospital, Durgapur and on 24.02.2015 at about 7.00 A. M. 5. The learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay the awarded compensation since there had been a delay of 92 days in filing the complaint. Moreover, the driving license possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle was invalid. The age of the victim being 42 years on the date of the accident the multiplier should have been considered to be “14” and not “15”. 6. The learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted to have filed a cross-objection being COT/75/2023 which, inter alia, stated the grievance of the claimants for the learned Tribunal disregarded the monthly income of Rs.12,000/- as claimed by the claimants and granted a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards monthly income of the victim. Moreover, the medical expenses to the tune of Rs.2,22,480/- was not granted by the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal further erred in deducting 1/3rd of the annual income of the victim towards personal expenditure instead of 1/4th since the number of claimants had been four. 7. Since the occurrence of the accident, the driving license, the Insurance policy, the route permit etc. and other ancillary issues 3 have not been disputed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company. 8. The document marked as exhibit 2 being the complaint filed by the respondent no. 1 before the Officer-in-Charge, North Police Station, Asansol, District – Burdwan on 19th May, 2015 explained the cause of delay in filing the same which appeared to be explanatory and satisfactory. The issue of invalid driving license had not been agitated by the appellant/Insurance Company before the learned Tribunal either through the averments in the written statement or adducing evidence to prove that the driving license possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle had been invalid. Moreover, the evidence of opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 corroborated the fact of the accident to have occurred on the relevant date and time with the involvement of the offending vehicle and the contentions of the learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company are accordingly negated. The document marked as exhibit 15/2 along with the deposition evidence of P.W. 3 the last salary drawn by the victim for the month of January, 2015 had been Rs.12,000/- being the gross salary. The victim earned a gross salary of Rs.12,000/- inclusive of the house rent allowance as well as the sum deducted for ESI. Disregarding the evidence of P.W. 3 as well as exhibit marked as 15/2 the learned Tribunal should not have considered the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.9,000/- per month. The evidence of P.W. 2 along with the documents marked as exhibit 14 collectively revealed a sum of Rs.2,22,480/- had been paid for his medical expenses for the period of his admission in the hospital and the claimants were entitled to the grant of the aforesaid amount. 4 Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr2, the impugned award of Rs. 11,50,000/- is modified as follows: Monthly income Add Future Prospect to be added( 25%) Annual Income Less 1/4th Personal Expenses Multiplier to be “14” Medical Expenses General Damages Entitlement Rs. 12,000/- Rs. 3000/- Rs. 15,000/- Rs. 12 ------------------ Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 45,000/- Rs. 1,35,000/- Rs. 1,35,000 X 14 Rs. 18,90,000/- Rs. 2,22,480/- Rs. 21,12,480/- Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 21,96,480/- 9. It was further submitted by the Learned Advocate for the appellant/insurance company that the Appellant/Insurance Company had deposited two distinct cheuqes i.e. Rs. 25,000 + Rs.16,41,636/- totaling Rs. 16,66,636/. 10. The respondent Nos. 1 and 4/claimants are entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs. Rs. 21,96,480//- along with interest at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual realization. 11. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company is to deposit the differential balance amount before the Office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta within six weeks before passing of this order. 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 2 (2009) 6 SC 121 5 12. The office of the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall encash the cheques and thereafter disburse the entire awarded amount so deposited along with accrued interest to the present respondent No.1 to 4/claimants as mentioned in the award passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Purba Burdwan in M.A.C. Case No. 79 of 2016 within four weeks from the date of passing of this order, on proof of proper identification of the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Courts fees. 13. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 14. The interim order if any stand vacated. 15. The applications if any stands disposed of. 16. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)