1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay F.M.A 474 of 2022 Madhusudan Maity -Vs- National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. For the Appellant : Mr. Krishanu Banik, Mr. T. Banik For the Respondents/ : Mr. Rajesh Singh Insurance Company Heard & Judgment on : 08.05.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:- 1. The instant appeal was heard earlier and judgment was reserved. However, the matter was listed under the heading ‘For Hearing’ for further clarification. 2. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present. 3. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 19.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 126/186 of 2013/2006. 4. The claimant being the victim of the accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2 Additional District Judge, 2nd Court being MAC Case No. 126/2013 claiming an award of Rs.2,10,000/- with costs and interest from the date of filing till the date of realization of the compensation whereby the aforesaid was injured due to a road traffic accident on 21.03.2006 at about 9:45 a.m. 5. The offending vehicle, a bus bearing registration no. WGB-5667 was driving in a rash and negligent manner and lost control causing the bus to tip over. The victim being a passenger was severely injured. 6. The victim was treated at Kamarda B.P.H.C. after the accident. He was later admitted to Monideepa Nursing Home. He continued to receive treatment at other institutes. 7. Subsequently, based on a written complaint, a case was instituted at Khejuri P.S. on 21.03.2006 against the driver of the offending truck as aforesaid. 8. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the case which proceeded ex parte against him. 9. The respondent, the National Insurance Company Ltd. contested the aforesaid MAC Case. 10. The learned Tribunal as aforesaid disposed of the issues framed considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and awarded a sum of Rs.48,000/- as compensation with an interest of 9% per annum from the date of filing the case being 12.12.2006 till the date of realization would be paid by the insurance company. 11. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:- 3 (a) Inadequate compensation of Rs.48,000/-was awarded the injured victim who suffered 30% permanent disability on his person/body which was established by both oral and documentary evidences arising out of the motor accident which occurred on 21.03.2006. (b) The income of the appellant was Rs.3,500/- being an employee of a bus. However, his income was considered as Rs.3,000/-. (c) The disability certificate was discarded on the ground that the doctor who issued the certificate was not an orthopaedic doctor as per provision of Workmen’s Compensation Act while assessing the loss of earning capacity. (d) The future prospects of the injured victim should have been considered, who was aged 39 years at the time of accident following the recent decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court of India in the case of Santoshi Devi, Rajesh –Vs.- Rajvir etc. (e) Adequate compensation should have been awarded the victim-injured who suffered permanent disability on his body due to the severe injury out of the said motor accident on the heads of (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pains and suffering already suffered or likely to be suffered in future, (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life, i.e., on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit, (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointments, frustration and mental stress in life. 4 12. The learned Advocate representing the respondents/Insurance Company submitted that the victim failed to produce any document with regard to his claim of Rs.3,500/- as monthly income as well as the medical expenditure. 13. Heard the submission of the learned advocates representing the respective parties. 14. Since the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, the driving license, Insurance certificate etc. are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the respondents/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of considering the aforementioned issues. 15. Having perused the oral and documentary evidence as well as the reasons cited by the learned Tribunal in assessing the compensation awarded this Court is inclined to modify the impugned judgment and order by enhancing the compensation granted towards pain and suffering to Rs.25,000/-. So, the victim is entitled to a sum of Rs.73,000/- (Rs.48,000 + Rs. 25,000/-). 16. The appellant/claimant is entitled to a further sum of Rs. 73,000/- along with 6% interest per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the application till the date of its actual realization. 17. The Learned Advocate for the respondents/insurance companies is to deposit the sum of Rs. 73,000/- along with 6 % per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application before the office of 5 the learned Registrar General, High Court Calcutta within six weeks from the date of passing of this order. 18. The office of the Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall encash the said cheque and thereafter disburse the same to the appellant/claimant as mentioned in the award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 126/186 of 2013/2006 on proof of proper identification of the appellant/claimant subject to payment of ad valorem Court’s fees. 19. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 20. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 21. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) Srimanta, A.R.(Ct.)