Item No. 06 Ct 09 rup 23.07. 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 249 of 2024 Pratima Tudu & Ors. Vs The New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr. Mr. Amit Ranjan Ray. … for the appellant. Ms. Sayanti Santra. … for the respondent/Insurance Company. Learned advocates for the parties are present. Heard learned advocates. The appellant before this Court were claimants in a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 04.07. 2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in M.A.C. Case No. 01 of 2018. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: That on 11-04-2017 at about 06 AM while the victim Puna Tudu alias Majhi was returning home after completion of his duty from his working place at Narsumuda Colliery and proceeding and walking towards B.N. R. side on the way at Asansol to Neanamatpur road near Ranjit petrol Pump he was dashed by a Ambassador Car bearing Regn. No. DL- 1-CN-1712 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. As a result the victim sustained serious injuries all over his body. Local Police on duty brought him at Asansol District Hospital for treatment but the Attending Doctor declared him brought dead. This accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver the said Ambassador Car. The victim was the only earning member of his family and due to his sudden death his family members are facing great difficulties and passing their days with starvation. Pursuant to the institution of this case, notice was issued upon the opposite parties. The opposite party/vehicle owner did not appear and contest the case. However, the opposite party New India Assurance Co. Ltd. contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence and upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties, was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows: “Hence, it is ORDERED that the M. A. C. Case. No. 01/2018 2 (168/2017), CIS No. MAC 10151/2017 be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost against the OP no.2/The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and ex-parte against the O.P. no. 1 the owner of the offending Vehicle being no. DL-1-CH-1712 (Ambassador). The claimants do get an award of Rs. 13,94,800/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) in this proceeding subject to deposit of deficit court fee. The OP no.2 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. the Insurer of the offending Ambassador car being No. DL-1-CH-1712 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 13,94,800/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand Eight Hundred Only) to the claimants by five (4) account payee cheques of Rs. 3,48,700/- each to claimant Nos. 1 to 4 namely 1) Pratima Tudu (Wife of the deceased), 2) Disha Tudu (Daughter of the deceased), 3) Bishal Tudu (Majhi) (Son of the deceased) and 4) Kalomuni Mejhian (Mother of the deceased) through the Tribunal within two months hereof with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of application till realization in full, subject to deposit of deficit court fees.” The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by 3 the judgment and award dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. Heard learned advocates for the appellants/claimants and learned advocates for the respondent no.1/insurance company. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned advocates for the appellants/claimants submits that Learned Trial Court erred in law in not taking into consideration future prospect on the ground that the claimants have received the death benefits of the deceased. Learned advocate further submits that the release of death benefits cannot be ground to deprive the future prospect with regard to the compensation. Learned advocate also submits that in terms of decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 (SC) 3157 future prospect is to be considered. Learned advocate for the respondent no.1/ New India Assurance Company Limited disputes the submission of the learned advocate for the appellants and submits that compensation awarded is just and reasonable. Upon hearing the learned advocates and upon considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the 4 view that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra) should be taken into consideration with regard to the future prospect. As the victim was working in a government undertaking the future prospect should be 50%. It is well settled that mere grant of death benefits to the victim’s family is not a ground for adjusting the same from the compensation awarded and for depriving the claimant’s /victim’s family from compensation but the same may be taken into consideration to decide as to whether the compensation calculated is just and reasonable. However, before coming to the conclusion as to whether the compensation computed is just and reasonable at the very out set the compensation should be computed as per guidelines provided under the law and different judicial decisions. Pursuant to the computation of the compensation and considering the death benefits or any pension which is received by the victim’s family it has to be decided whether the compensation which is ascertained by arithmetical calculation is just and reasonable. In the instant case, the monthly income is considered Rs.9000/- per month, the yearly income comes to Rs.1,08,000/-. 1/3 being deducted the net yearly income comes to Rs.72,000/-. The multiplier 5 of 16 being applied, the total dependency loss comes s. 11,52,000/-. Future prospect of 50% being added the total dependency loss comes to Rs.17,28,000/-. Further the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,10,000/- on account of consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus, Rs.18,38,000/- is the total compensation which is arrived by arithmetical calculation with regard to the entitlement of the claimants. However, as Courts are empowered to award just and reasonable compensation in accordance with Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 it is necessary to consider as to whether the compensation calculated is just and reasonable. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Indira Shrivastav reported in AIR 2008 S.C 845the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “23. The expression 'just' must also be given its logical meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit but in considering as to what would be just and equitable, all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.” In the case of T. N State Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rajapriya and Ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 236, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis "and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master" since there are so often many imponderables. In every case "it is the overall picture that matters", and 6 the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.” As Courts are empowered to award just and reasonable compensation it should also be considered as to whether the compensation derived by the arithmetical calculation would be just and reasonable. It is well known that when a government employee dies during service the family members get either family pension or compassionate appointment as well as death benefits. Although grant of death benefits and family pension is not ground to deprive compensation to the victim’s family or to adjust the same from the pension calculated but the same can be taken into consideration to arrive at a reasonable and just compensation. In the instant case, as per deposition of PW-1 the application for compassionate appointment is already made and as per government service rules family pension or compassionate appointment is granted in case of died-in-harness cases. This Court is thus of the view that it would be just and reasonable to take this factor into consideration and award compensation of Rs.16,00,000/-. Hence, this appeal being FMA 249 of 2024 stands disposed of. The judgment and award dated 04.07. 2023 7 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Asansol, Paschim Bardhaman in M.A.C. Case No. 01 of 2018 stands modified to the extent that the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs.16,00,000/- from New India Assurance Company Limited along with interest @ 6% p.a from the date of filing of the claim case till today. The respondent No.1/New India Assurance Company shall deposit Rs.16,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event the compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is deposited or paid to the claimants the balance amount be deposited. Deficit court fees, if any, be paid within four weeks. As it is submitted by the learned advocate for the claimants/appellants that the compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is already received the balance amount be deposited. The appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance compensation amount in equal shares upon compliance of all necessary formalities. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. 8 (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) 9