IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 22.07.2026 Item No.8 Ali ct. no.9 FMA 114 of 2021 Dharma Shila Debi @ Dharam Shila Debi & Ors. Vs. Anjana Biswas & Anr. Mr. Soujanya Bandyopadhyay ….for the appellants. Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari …….for the respondents. 1. Learned advocates for the parties are present. 2. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. 3. The appellant before this Court were claimants in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by learned Special Court-Cum- Additional District Judge, Hooghly, in MAC Case No. 163 of 2013. 4. The case of the claimants before the learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: “On 03.04.2013 Santosh Roy, since deceased, was proceeding by a taxi bearing no. WB-19A- 8432 in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and when he reached at Bally Toll Tax Area, Police Station Nischinda, Howrah, he met 2 with a motor accident endangering human life and safety for which Santosh Roy sustained severe injuries on his person and he was admitted to the Sun Flower Nursing Home where he died on 06.04.2013 at about 1.25 a.m. The driver of the aforesaid vehicle drove the vehicle with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The victim was aged about 26 years and he was a business man by occupation and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. The claimants have been suffering from financial and mental pain due to premature accident of Santosh Roy. Pursuant to filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Although opposite party vehicle owner appeared but did not contest the case till final hearing. Opposite party Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidences were adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the learned advocate was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows: “Hence, it is, O R D E R E D That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. and ex- 3 parte against the OP No. 1, owner of the offending vehicle having its No. WB-19A/8432. The petitioners are entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,80,500/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs eighty Thousand five hundred Only) from the OP No. 2. Opposite Party No. 2, the United India Insurance Company Ltd. along with interest at the rate of Rs. 4% per annum from the date of filing of this case. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to issue five account payee cheques of Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand only) each in favour of 1. Kailash Roy 2. Dharmashila Devi 3. Kalu Kumar 4. Anshu Kumari and 5. Sumit Kumar along with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing of this case and also issue another account payee cheque in favour of Raj Kumari Devi amounting to Rs. 1,80,500/- (Rupees one Lakh eighty Thousand and five hundred Only) along with interest at the rate of 4% per annum from the date of filing of this case within 90 days from this day. The petitioner No. 3 namely, Raj Kumari Devi is directed to deposit Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand Only) each in the name of her minor children, namely, Kalu Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Anshu Kumari in any Nationalized Bank or Post Office in the nature of Term Deposit till attainment of their majority and she will be at liberty to withdraw the interest for the maintenance of their minor children.” 5. The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. Heard learned advocate for the appellants/claimants and learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 4 Insurance Company. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. 6. Learned advocate for the appellants submits that the learned Trial Judge erred in considering the monthly income of the victim as Rs.5,000/- although the victim was a driver and documents with regard to driving, namely, the registration of commercial vehicle in his name and the driving licence was proved before the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned advocate further submits that the learned Trial Judge erred in not awarding the medical expenses incurred during the victim’s stay in hospital prior to his death. It is also submitted by the learned advocate that the interest awarded by the Trial Court should be at least 6% per annum instead of 4% per annum. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the insurance Company disputes the submission of learned advocate for the appellants/claimants. 9. Learned advocate for the claimants/appellants relies upon by following decisions: V. Pathmavathi and Others Versus Bharthi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another reported in 2026 (1) T.A.C. 705 (S.C.). Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dipali and Others reported in FMA 462 of 2025, High Court, Calcutta. 5 10. Upon hearing the learned advocates and considering the facts of the case and the materials on record it appears that the claimants were able to prove the driving licence of the victim as well as the registration of commercial vehicle in his name. As the claimants were able to prove the occupation of the victim it is necessary to consider the monthly income of the persons in the said occupation. In considering the monthly income of a particular category of employees Court can consider the income which is provided under the Minimum Wages Act or the income in general earned by the person of such categories. As the victim was not employed under any person and it was own business there was no scope to apply the Minimum Wages Act. Thus, considering the price index the nature of occupation and the income of occupation of the income which is usually earned in such occupation the monthly income of the victim could have also been assessed at Rs.10,000/- as claimed by the claimants. In the case of V.Pathmavathi and Others Versus Bharthi AXA General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “16. In the present case, the MACT proceeded on the premise that the monthly 6 income of the victim was Rs. 6,000/-. This was subsequently enhanced by the High Court to Rs. 7,000/-, albeit without recording any reason. However, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has rightly drawn our attention to the salary certificate issued by the employer of the victim, marked Exhibit P- 14, which unequivocally records that the victim was employed as a driver on a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 10,000/-. This documentary evidence is further corroborated by the affidavit sworn by the victim’s employer (PW-3). On the face of such cogent and relevant evidence, which was not impeached by the insurer, it would be wholly impermissible to assess the income at a lower figure. The determination of income must be founded on proof placed on record and cannot rest on conjecture or assumptions divorced from evidence. Accordingly, for the purposes of re- computation, the monthly income of the victim has to be reckoned as Rs. 10,000/-”. 11. In the case of Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Dipali and Others it was observed as follows: “Now with regard to the occupation of the victim the claimant/ respondent no. 1, 2 & 3 have been able to establish by giving specific evidence that the victim was driver of vehicle bearing no. WB-37/6621 which was a bus and the name of the owner and his address is also mentioned. Thus, the 7 claimants/respondents have been able to prove that the victim was a bus driver. With regard to the salary of the victim although the claimants did not filed the salary slip or examine the owner of the vehicle, but the Learned Trial Judge accepted the evidence of PW1 and considered the income of the victim to be Rs. 10,000/-. Now the point for consideration is whether the Ld. Trial Judge erred in accepting the evidence of claimants without corroboration. Learned Advocates have relied upon decisions where income of driver was considered as Rs. 7,500/- as well as Rs. 10,000/-. Learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company has also relied upon the notification with regard to minimum wages of driver of transport vehicle. It is true that when the minimum wages of driver of transport vehicle is prescribed, drivers cannot be paid less than the said wages but there is no bar in making payment of wages more than the minimum wages. While considering the issue of income of a victim with regard to particular employment Courts may not only confine to what is the minimum wages but may also take into consideration market rate prevailing with regard to particular employment and the income reasonably required for a person to maintain his family, for which a person accepts any work/employment. Upon considering such factors Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal can decide the issue of income on the basis of evidence of claimants even if there is no 8 corroboration. Now so far as income of driver is concerned it is found in reality that even car drivers are also paid more than Rs. 10,000/-. Thus the evidence of the claimant that victim who was a bus driver was earning Rs 10,000/- per month as salary can be relied upon. Thus the Ld. Trial Judge did not err in considering the monthly income of the victim to be Rs. 10,000/-. Hence there is nothing to interfere in the Judgment and award of the Learned Trial Judge”. 12. In the event the monthly income of the victim is considered at Rs.10,000/- the annual income comes to Rs.1,20,000/- 40% of future prospect added which is Rs.48,000/- the total annual income comes to Rs.1,58,000/- 1/4th should be deducted on account of personal expenses and the net annual dependency loss comes to Rs.1,26,000/-. Applying the multiplier of 17 the total dependency loss comes to Rs.21,42,000/-. Further the claimants are entitled to get Rs.84,000/- on account of loss of consortium and loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs.22,26,000/- by arithmetical calculation. However as the victim was in hospital for three days it would be reasonable to add Rs.24,000/- and thus reasonable compensation shall be Rs.22,50,000/- which the claimants/appellants shall be awarded. 9 13. Hence, this appeal FMA 114 of 2021 stands disposed. The judgment and award dated 28th July, 2020 passed by learned Special Court-Cum- Additional District Judge, Hooghly, in MAC Case No. 163 of 2013 stands modified to the extent that the appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- from respondent No.2 Insurance Company. The respondent No. 2 Insurance Company shall deposit before the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta, Rs.22,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim case till today. Such deposit shall be made within eight weeks from the date communication of this order. In the event the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court is already deposited the balance amount be deposited. The appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount in equal shares upon compliance of necessary formalities. 14. This appeal FMA 795 of 2023 stands disposed of. 15. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)