Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 49302 (CAL)

NATIONAL IN. CO. LTD. v. RIYA PODDAR AND ORS.

FMA/165/2024 · 2025-07-30

Ananya Bandyopadhyay

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 165 of 2024 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Riya Poddar & Ors. With COT/39/2024 Riya Poddar & Ors. Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. For the Appellant/Insurance Company: Mr. Rajesh Singh. For the Respondents/claimants : Mr. Subhankar Mandal. Heard & Judgment on : 30th July, 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 18..03.2023 passed by the Learned Additional 2 District & Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Asansol in M.A.C. Case No. 101 of 2016. 3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants due to the death of the victim in an accident which took place on 11.11.2015 at about 06:30 A.M. with the involvement of the offending vehicle being Maruti Omni bearing registration no. WB-38AD/3271 which proceeding at an excessive speed rashly and negligently collided with the motor cycle bearing registration no. WB-40M/0432 being driven by the victim on his way at 36, Gonda Culvert to his house at village – Kendra (Hattala), Pandabeshwar. The victim consequently suffered injuries and fell down below the culvert. He was rescued and shifted to Vivekananda Hospital, Durgapur where he expired on 13.11.2015. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted the complaint to have filed after 23 days of occurrence of the accident which indicated the false implication of the vehicle in question for the purpose of extracting compensation which the appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay. 5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted to have filed a cross-objection being COT/39/2024 on the ground that the Learned Tribunal erred in granting 15% 3 instead of 50% towards the element of future prospect since one of the claimants had already received the compassionate appointment. The Learned Tribunal in spite of both oral and documentary evidence did not grant the amount incurred towards medical expenses to the tune of Rs.38,280/-. Moreover, the age of the victim to have been 39 years on the date of the accident the multiplier should have been considered to be 15 and 1/3rd of the income of the decease should have been deducted towards personal expenses in case of the number of claimants being three. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted that the Learned Tribunal did not consider the gross annual income and assessed the annual income of the victim considering the net salary. 6. 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 appellant/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of rectifying the above-mentioned issues. 7. Considered the rival contentions of the respective parties. 8. The document marked as Exhibit – 2 being the complaint filed by the appellant no. 1 at the Pandabeshwar Police Station on 06.12.2015 mentioned the cause of delay to be mentally distressed and occupied with performance of funeral rites and 4 rituals. The reasons cited by the complainant had been explanatory, practical and normal which should not be discarded on the ground of suspicion of false implication of the offending vehicle. The contention of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company is, accordingly, negated. Moreover, the delay of 23 days in filing the complaint based on the grounds mentioned therein had not been inordinate or procrastinating. The authorized person of Eastern Coalfields Limited appeared before the Court to depose and the documents with regard to the salary slips, the attested copy of Form – 16 had been marked as Exhibit – 14 collectively and Exhibit – 15 collectively. The document marked as Exhibit – 16 pertained to the assessment year 2015-2016 concerning the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 which revealed the gross annual income to be Rs. 5,80,840/- and a sum of Rs.23,070/- along with sum of Rs.2,350/- being paid towards income tax as well as professional tax respectively amounting to Rs.25,420/- which after deduction from the gross annual income of Rs.5,80,840/- was deduced to be Rs. 5,55,420/-. Benefits of compassionate appointment enured by one of the appellants will not frustrate the essence of the beneficial legislative intent of the Motor Vehicles Act. The reasons cited by the Learned Tribunal to reduce the component of future prospect to 15% instead of 50% on account 5 of compassionate appointment granted in favour of one of the appellants could not be acceptable. Considering the age of the victim to have been 39 years in view of the document marked as Exhibit – 8 the claimants were entitled to 50% of the income of the victim towards future prospect. 9. 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 & Anr.2, the impugned award of Rs. 55,15,584/- is modified as follows: Annual Income Less: P. Tax Less : Income Tax Add : Future Prospect (50%) Less: 1/3rd Personal Expenses Multiplier to be “15” Add : Non-Pecuniary Damages Rs. 5,80,840/- Rs. 2,350/- ______________ Rs. 5,78,490/- Rs. 23,070/- _______________ Rs. 5,55,420/- Rs. 2,77,710/- _______________ Rs. 8,33,130/- Rs. 2,77,710/- ______________ Rs. 5,55,420/- X 15 Rs. 83,31,300/- Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 84,15,300/- 10. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs.81,62,941/- as 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 2 (2009) 6 SC 121 6 per challan filed by the Learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company. 11. The Respondents/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 84,15,300/- at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 21.01.2016 till the date of actual realization. 12. The Learned Advocate for the appellant/insurance company is to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 26,47,357/- along with 6 % per cent interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, i.e., 21.01.2016 till the date of its actual realization before the office of the Learned Registrar General, High Court Calcutta within six weeks from the date of passing of this order. 13. 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 to the Bank accounts of the respondents/claimants directly in equal proportion as mentioned in the impugned judgment of the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2nd Court, Asansol in M.A.C. Case No. 101 of 2016 on proof of proper identification of the respondents/claimants subject to payment of ad valorem Court fees and refund the balance amount, if any, along with accrued interest through a cheque to the Learned Advocate for the 7 Appellant/Insurance Company for the accounts of the insurance company. 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. 14. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 15. The pending 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.) Srimanta, A.R.(Ct.)