Form No. J(2) DL-263-264 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 1160 of 2021 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Joly Datta & Ors. With COT/93/2023 Maya Dutta -Vs.- National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. For the Appellant : Ms. Sucharita Paul For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mondal Mr. Sayantan Rakshit Heard & Judgment on : 4th September, 2025. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondent No. 1 to 3/claimants are present in Court. 2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 9th September, 2020 passed by the Learned Judge, 2 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 111 of 2010/MACC No. 3197 of 2014. 3. An application Under Section 166 of the of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants on the account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 6th July, 2010 at about 11.30 hours with the involvement of a truck bearing registration no. WB-53 2843 approaching at an excessive speed, rashly and negligently clashed with the victim riding his bicycle resulting in sustaining multiple injuries, who was thereafter shifted to B N Bose Sadar Hospital at Barrackpore where he was admitted and treated from 10th July 2010 and succumbed to his injuries on 12.07.2010. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company submitted to have filed the instant appeal exclusively on the ground that the Learned Tribunal did not consider the driver of the offending vehicle to have possessed a valid driving licence on the date of the accident as per the deposition of the D.W.2 which reveal the driving licence issued for driving heavy goods vehicle to be valid till 19.03.2010. He further submitted that the income tax return taken into consideration was filed after the death of the victim. 3 5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1 to 3/claimants submitted to have filed a cross objection being COT 93 of 2023 on the following grounds. Firstly, the future prospect was granted to the extent of 25% instead of 40% considering the age of the victim to be 40 years on the date of the accident. Secondly, the Income Tax Return revealed the annual income of the victim to be Rs. 1,94,000/- to be his annual income. However, the Learned Tribunal considered the sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- in respect of the gross total income of Rs. 1,94,000/-. It was further submitted that the Learned Tribunal granted interest to the extent of 4% per annum which had been inadequate. 6. Since the occurrence of the accident, 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 deposition of the representative of the licensing authority being D.W.2 revealed the driver of the offending vehicle to have been issued with licence to drive heavy goods vehicle which was valid till 19.03.2010. The aforesaid witness failed to declare as to whether the driving licence was renewed or not. He further stated to be unaware of the actual facts and circumstances of this case 4 lacking his personal knowledge. It was deposed that the driving licence had been computerized and there had been probabilities that the driver of the offending vehicle might have possessed a valid driving licence. The evidence of D.W.2 as stated appeared to be self-contradictory without proper knowledge. The Document marked as Ext. 3 being the charge-sheet in the column 11 wherein the seized article had been, revealed the renewal slip of the driving licence being valid up to 19.03.2010 which covered the period wherein the accident had occurred on 6th July, 2010. Accordingly, the contentions of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company are negated. The document marked as Ext. 13 mentioned the gross annual income of the victim to have been Rs. 1,94,000/- the Learned Tribunal should have deducted the amount of Rs. 2435/- paid against the income tax by the victim in respect of considering the profit and loss and the annual income. Moreover, the victim expired at the age of 40 years and in considering the computation of future prospect the compensation should have been computed to the extent of 40% instead of 25%. The interest at the rate of 4% per annum is increased to 6% per annum. 7. The impugned award is modified as follows: 5 Yearly Income Less Income Tax Future Prospect to be added( 40%) Multiplier to be “15” Personal Expenses (1/3rd) General Damages Medical Expenses Entitlement Rs. 1,94,000/- Rs. 2,435/- Rs. 1,91,565/- Rs. 76,626/- Rs. 2,68,191/- x 15 Rs.40,22,865/- Rs.13,40,955/ _____________ Rs.26,81,910/ Rs. 70,000/- ______________ Rs.27,51,910/ +Rs.5,75,798/ Rs.33,27,708/ 8. The learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs. 35,47,687/=(Rs. 25,000 + 35,22,687) 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 enhanced amount before the office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court at Calcutta within two months from date of passing of this order. 9. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 33,27,708/- 6 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 3/claimants as mentioned Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge & Sessions Judge, 1st Court, at Barasat, North 24 Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 111 of 2010/MACC No. 3197 of 2014 on proof of proper identification of the respondent No.1 to 3/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court fees. The office of the Learned Registrar General, High 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. Copy of the order be sent to the Department as well as the concerned tribunal as expeditiously as possible. (Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.) 7 c.m. Ar. Ct.