Form No. J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 936 of 2023 Ratna Ghosh (Mahato) & Ors. Versus M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Anr. For the Appellants/claimants : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal, Ms. Sima Ghosh, Mr. Sayantan Rakshit. For the Respondents/ Insurance Company : Mr. Rajesh Singh. Heard & Judgment on : 27th August, 2025. Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J: 1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellants/claimants and the respondents/Insurance Company are present in Court. 2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Suri, Birbhum in M.A.C. Case No. 165 of 2016. 3. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted to have filed the instant appeal exclusively on the ground that the Learned Tribunal considering the victim who had 2 died in the accident which occurred on 18.07.2016 at about 4.45 P.M. near Joypur Petrol Pump on Panagarh-Moregram Highway within the jurisdiction of Mohammad Bazar Police Station, District – Birbhum instrumental in causing the accident having negligently collided with the offending vehicle being a truck bearing registration no. WB-57C/1854. Considering the theory of contributory negligence the Learned Tribunal had assessed a reduction of 30% of the compensation owing to contributory negligence. 4. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/Insurance Company submitted observation of the Learned Tribunal to have assessed the victim to have negligently contributed to the occurrence of the accident was justified through the explanation in the impugned Judgment and order and this Court should not interfere with the same. 5. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties. 6. Since the occurrence of the accident, insurance policy, the driving licence, route permit etc and other ancillary issues are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of modifying the above-mentioned issues. 3 7. The Learned Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and order, inter alia, observed as follows:- “It may not be out of place to point out that PW-2 is examined by the claimants being eye-witness. He has come before Court being requested by the widow of the victim who was his colleague. This P.W.-02 in course of cross-examination admitted that the accident took place in front of Joypur petrol pump which was on the right side of their way. If that be so, the accident took place on the right side of their way because their case is that the accident took place in front of the Joypur petrol pump. It is not their case that the accident took place on either side of the road leading in front of the petrol pump. This witness has also claimed that it was a case of head on collision and the offending vehicle stopped there. Considering all these it seems to me that claimants could be able to substantiate that the accident took place due to some extent rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing No. WB/57C/1854. Buy in my humble view he was not the sole responsible for the accident. Taking all these together it seems to me that though the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending truck, 4 motorcyclist had also contribution to the accident and that contribution to the reason behind the accident, in my humble view should be not less than 30%”. 8. The evidence of the eye-witness being P.W. 2 is replicated as follows:- “That on 18.07.2016 the victim was returning home from his school (after completion of school hours duty) through Panagarh- Moregram Highway (NH-60) riding on his motorcycle WB- 54E/7723 and by this manner at about 04.45 P.M.(Day) when he came near Joypur petrol pump on that road at that time the offending vehicle being No. WB-57C/1854 which was proceeding towards Rampurhat side from Suri side, i.e. towards opposite direction, dashed the victim’s motorcycle coming in wrong side and the victim sustained grievous injury in his person and then and there he was shifted to Suri Sadar Hospital where the doctor of Suri Sadar Hospital declared him as dead. That the driver of the offending vehicle being No. WB-57C/1854 was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently with high and excessive speed and caused the accident coming in wrong side. The driver of the offending vehicle was the sole responsible for the accident and accidental death of the victim. The victim was driving his motorcycle through his left side with moderate speed and he was driving the motorcycle after wearing helmet in spite 5 of that he sustained grievous injury in his person. The offending vehicle dashed the victim along with his motorcycle with full force and for which such type of accident took place. That I saw the accident from 20-30 cubits away from the spot of accident. At the relevant time, I was also returning home, i.e. Suri side riding my motorcycle and the accident took place in front of me.” 9. The deposition of P.W. 2 in his examination-in-chief could not be controverted during the cross-examination which revealed that - “The offending vehicle was going to Suri side to Md. Bazar side, i.e. in the opposite direction. Head on collision was taken place and the offending vehicle stopped there. The offending vehicle was a truck (Tata) and it was brown coloured vehicle. The victim was driving a motor cycle (Hero Honda Glamour). The said motorcycle also got damaged to some extent due to the accident”. 10. The evidence-on-record indicated that the truck approached from the opposite side of the lane and had quashed with the motorcycle of the victim on the wrong side of the road. The complaint as well as the charge-sheet indicated the driver of the offending vehicle to have been responsible for causing the accident. The Learned Tribunal should not have deducted 30% of the compensation amount towards contributory negligence which 6 could not be proved contrary to the evidence of the eye-witness being P.W. 2. 11. The Learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants submitted that the appellants/claimants have withdrawn a sum of Rs. 48,73,876/- which was awarded by the Learned Tribunal. The appellants/claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,58,804/-. 12. The Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1/insurance company is to deposit the balance sum of Rs. 20,58,804/- before the office of the learned Registrar General, High Court Calcutta within two months 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 directly to the Bank accounts of appellants/claimants in proportion as mentioned in the impugned judgment of the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4th Court, Suri, Birbhum in M.A.C. Case No. 165 of 2016 on proof of proper identification of the respondents/Insurance Company 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. 14. The instant appeal is disposed of accordingly. 7 15. The pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 16. The TCR be sent down to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. 17. 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.)