Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6482 (CAL)

NATIONAL IN. CO. LTD. v. PRAMATH KR. GUPTA & ORS.

FMA/367/2023 · 2025-08-05

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 367 of 2023 National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pramath Kumar Gupta & Ors. For the Appellant/Insurance Company: Mrs. Sucharita Paul. For the Respondents/claimants : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal. Heard & Judgment on : 5th August, 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 12.09.2019 passed by the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, 4th Court, Barrackpore, North 24-Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 496 of 2018. 2 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 10.07.2018 at about 7:00 A.M. with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a bus bearing registration no. WB-23B/8426 which approaching at an exceeding speed rashly and negligently hit the victim accompanying her daughter on her way to the school resulting in her fall and subsequently being run over by the offending bus. The victim was declared ‘brought dead’ at Dr. B. N. Bose Sub-Divisional Hospital, Barrackpore. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the Income-tax return filed after the death of the victim bore her name which was impractical and fraudulent since after the demise of the victim the same could not have mentioned the Income-tax return to be filed by the victim herself. Further, the Learned Tribunal had computed the element of his future prospect to the extent of 30% instead of 25% considering the age of the victim to be 41 years at the relevant date of accident whereby the multiplier should also have been considered as ‘14’ instead of ‘15’. Moreover, the route permit issued in favour of the offending vehicle had been invalid. 5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted though the appellant did not file any cross-objection, 3 however, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision of National Insurance Company Limited –Vs.- Pranay Shetty & Anr.1 the respondents/claimants were entitled to an amount of Rs.84,000/- instead of Rs.9,500/-. 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 Learned Advocates representing the respective parties. 8. The documents marked as Exhibit-4 and Exhibit-6 series mentioned the age of the victim to be 41 years whereby the Learned Tribunal should have considered the multiplier to be ‘14’ instead of ‘15’ and future prospect should have been computed to the extent of 25% instead of 30%. The documents marked as Exhibit-6 series pertaining to the Income-tax return for the assessment years 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 reflected consistent enhancement in the income of the victim. The contention of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company that the Income-tax return filed for the assessment year 2018-2019 had been a manufactured 1 2017(4)TAC673(S.C.) 4 document cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the signature portion had not been signed and left blank in comparison to the Income-tax return filed for the assessment years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 where the relevant portion under the heading ‘sign here’ had been signed by the deceased victim. The name of the victim which appeared in the document of the Income-tax return filed for the assessment year 2018-2019 had mentioned the name of the victim in typed format rather than the same being hand written to have obliterated the possibility of concoction. Further, the submission of the Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was not permitted to ply with a valid route permit was not evinced on record. 9. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr2 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.3, the impugned award of Rs. 52,27,700/- is modified as follows:- Annual Income Less : Income Tax Add : Future Prospect (25%) Rs. 4,07,210/- Rs. 5,520/- ______________ Rs. 4,01,690/- Rs. 1,00,422/- _______________ Rs. 5,02,112/- 1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C) 3 (2009) 6 SC 121 5 Multiplier to be “14” Less : 1/3rd Personal Expenses Add : General Damags Less : Withdrawn earlier by claimants as per directions passed by this Hon’ble Court Entitlement X 14 Rs. 70,29,568/- Rs. 23,43,190/- Rs. 46,86,378/- Rs. 84,000/- Rs. 47,70,378/- Rs. 15,00,000/- Rs. 32,70,378/- 10. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs.65,24,935/- as per challan filed by the Learned Advocate representing the Appellant/Insurance Company. The Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants submitted that the respondents/claimants have withdrawn a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. The respondents/claimants are entitled to receive the balance sum of Rs.32,70,378/- along with 6% interest per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of its actual realization. The respondents/claimants are also entitled to 6% interest per annum on Rs. 15,00,000/- which he withdrawn earlier from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of receipt. 11. 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 respondents/claimants in equal 6 proportion as mentioned in the impugned judgment of the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court - IV, Barrackpore, District – North 24-Parganas in M.A.C. Case No. 496 of 2018 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 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. 12. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 13. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 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.) Srimanta, A.R.(Ct.)