Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 122 of 2024 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Laxmi Mudi & Ors. With COT/107/2024 Laxmi Mudi & Ors. -Vs.- National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. For the Appellant : Ms. Sucharita Paul For the Respondent No.1 to 6 : Mr. Krishanu Banik Mr. Tathagata Banik Heard & Judgment on : 22nd September, 2025. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents/claimants are present in Court. 2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 26th July, 2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor 2 Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District & Session Judge, FTC-1, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 489 of 2020. 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants on account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 4th February, 2020 in between 9.30 P.M. to 12 P.M. near village Gurguipal within the jurisdiction of Gurguripal police station in the District of Paschim Medinipur with the involvement of the offending vehicle being one four wheeler bearing registration No. WB-34BG-0215 which clashed the victim approached at an exceeding speed, rashly and negligently whereby the victim fell down from his motor cycle and suffered severe injuries and had been shifted to Midnapur Medical Collage and hospital wherefrom he referred to N.R.S. Medical Collage and Hospital. However, he shall subsequently shifted to Desun Hospital, Kolkata and ultimately expired on Ratna Hospital, Cuttak on 02.03.2020. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted the accident to have occurred at deserted place and raised suspicion with regard to the tersmission of the victim from such an isolated place to the Midnapur Medical Collage and Hospital. It was further submitted that the postmortem report dated 2.03.2020 had mentioned “allegedly fell down from a bridge while driving” admitted at local hospital then 3 died at 4.15 a.m. on 2nd March, 2020. It was further emphasized that the postmortem report did not mention the death of the victim as a consequence of a road traffic accident. More-over, the widow of the victim being claimant No.1 had filed an application under Section 156 (3) before the Court of Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur after six months of the occurrence of the accident instead of filing complaint at the local police station indicating false implication of the offending vehicle. It was further submitted that the claimant No.1/wife had lodged complaint before the police station after four months of the accident without plausible reason. It was further submitted that the charge-sheet filed on 30th September, 2020 against the alleged driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. WB-34BG/0215 had a table work the narrative facts of the content. The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear to contest the instant case before the Learned Tribunal. The widow of the claimant No.1 refused to produce any referral card issued by the Midnapore Medical Collage and hospital or any other medical documents issued by other hospitals wherein the victim claimed to have been admitted and/or treated bills of which were not submitted before the Learned Tribunal. It was further submitted that the deposition of eye witnesses had been fabricated and not creditworthy due to inconsistency and 4 contradiction. The eye witness submitted during winter night there were few people on the road and he recorded the number of the alleged offending vehicle on his palm but failed to note the number of the motor cycle driven by the victim. The eye witness however stated that the vehicle had stopped on the spot for about half an hour. The eye witness having known the number of the offending vehicle deliberately did not disclose the same before the concerned police authorities raising serious doubts and suspicion with regard to the veracity of the claim of the offending vehicle to have been involved in the accident. It was further submitted by the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company that the collective heads and general damages should have been restricted to Rs. 77,000/- instead of Rs. 1,50,000/- awarded by the Learned Tribunal. More- over, the Learned Tribunal should not have awarded the penal interest at the 9% over and above the simple interest at the rate of 6.5% in view of the provisions under Section 170(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company further relied upon the following judgments: (2018) 2 SCC 482 Anil Vs. The New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors., SLP 32138 of 2018 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Velu & Anr., FMA 2078 of 5 2014 National Insurance company Limited vs. Nirmalya Chakraborty & Anr., FMA 1056 of 2009 Raj Kumar Das Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and (2017) 16 SCC 680 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. 5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1 to 4/claimants contrarily controverted the submission of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company stated that the delay in lodging the complaint had been aptly mentioned by the victim claimant in the complaint. More-over, the Learned Tribunal erred in considering the multiplier which should have been ‘13’ considering the age of the victim on the date of the accident. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants relied upon the following decisions: The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mita Samanta & Ors. (2017ACJ 2212), National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pratima Barik & Anr. (2018 ACJ 77= 2017 (2) TAC 466(Cal), Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Ratnamaya Rai & Ors.(FMA 920 of 2021), Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Mousumi Das (Chatterjee) & Anr. (FMA 301 of 2019) and National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Noorbanu Bibi & Anr. (FMA 240 of 2023). 6 6. Since the occurrence of the accident, the driving license, the Insurance policy, etc. and other ancillary issues have not been disputed by the Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of issues agitated by the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties. The document marked as Ext. 1 mentioned the time period of delay in filing the complaint to have been consumed by the treatment of the victim had several hospitals. More-over, the ensuing period of Covid Pandemic, the complaint to have been lodged before the concerned police authorities which had not been effectuated and finally the complainant resorted to file an application under Section 156(3) before the Court of Learned CJM Paschim Medinipur i.e. Ext. 2. Based on the direction passed by the Learned CJM, Paschim Medinipur in pursuance to the completion under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. the First Information Report was instituted marked as Ext. 1. The explanation in the complaint under the prevailing circumstances had been explanatory which, therefore, cannot be disbelieved. The charge-sheet marked as Ext. 3 mentioned the involvement of the offending vehicle and subsequent arrest of the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the contents of the aforesaid documents taken in its entirety cannot deny the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The postmortem report 7 issued by the SCB Medical Collage, Cuttack mentioned that the victim had allegedly fell down from a bridge while which was contrary to the investigation of the Investigating Officer as per the charge-sheet which defiled the opinion of a medical doctor in the postmortem report who had not been remotely involved with the facts and circumstances of the case and such contention warranted to be negated. The age of the victim on the date of the accident was 55 years accordingly the multiplier should be 13. The Learned Tribunal erroneously granted the penal interest to the extent of 9% and the same should be rectified. Accordingly, the element of future prospect should have been granted 30% instead of 20%. 7. The impugned award of Rs. 76,43,600/- is modified as follows: Monthly income Less P. Tax Yearly Income Future Prospect to be added( 30%) Personal Expenses (1/4th) Multiplier to be “13” General Damages Medical Expenses Entitlement Rs. 47,988/- Rs. 200/- Rs. 47,788/- X 12 Rs. 5,73,456/ Rs. 1,72,036/- Rs. 7,45,492/- Rs. 1,86,373/- Rs. 5,59,119/- x 13 Rs.72,68,547/ Rs. 77,000/- ______________ Rs.73,45,547/ Rs. 3,62,886/ _____________ Rs.77,14,520/ 8 8. The learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs. 63,66,198/=(Rs. 25,000 + 63,41,198) through two separate cheques as per challan filed by the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company is to deposit the remaining amount, if any, before the office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta as expeditiously as possible. 9. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 63,66,198/- at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of actual realization. 10. The office of the learned Registrar General High Court at Calcutta, shall encash the cheques and thereafter disburse the entire awarded amount so deposited with accrued interest directly to the bank accounts of the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants as mentioned impugned judgment and award passed by Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District & Session Judge, FTC-1, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 489 of 2020 on proof of proper identification of the respondent No.1 to 4/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court fees. The office of the Learned Registrar General, High 9 Court at Calcutta will instruct the claimants to provide details of their bank accounts with relevant documentary proof, prior to such disbursal as aforesaid. 11. The instant appeal and cross objection are disposed of accordingly. 12. The pending application, if any, stands disposed of. 13. The interim order if any stand vacated. 14. The TCR be sent down to the concerned tribunal forthwith. 15. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) c.m. Ar. Ct.