S/L 68 22.07.2026 Court No.9 Swd IN THE High COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 471 of 2020 With IA NO: CAN/1/2019(Old No:CAN/11268/2019), CAN/2/2026 Manju Hazra & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy. … for the Appellant. Mrs. Sucharita Paul. … for the Respondent. 1. The learned Advocates for the parties are present. 2. The application being CAN 2 of 2026 filed by the appellant Nos.2 and 3 on the ground they have attained majority is taken up for consideration. Upon hearing the learned Advocate and upon perusing the petition the application stands allowed. Let the majority of appellant Nos.2 and 3 be recorded. 3. By Consent of the learned Advocates the appeal is taken up for hearing. 4. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 5. The appellants before this Court were the claimants in a case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned 2 Additional District Judge, Second Court, Purba Barddhaman in MAC Case No.57/351 of 2020. 6. The case of the appellant claimant before the learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:- On 24.10.2013 at about 02-30 p.m. the victim- Mintu Hazra was travelling by a bus WB 41A- 4973 (he sat on the back door side sit of the bus) which was proceeding rashly and negligently- and the driver used sudden breaks along the Gurkare Burdwan Road (NH-2B) near Ambona Natunhat, Culvert. Due to rash and negligent driving the said victim was not able to keep his balance and fell down from the bus. As a result he sustained severe injuries and it caused his death. Rash and negligent driving on the part of the bus was the sole cause of this accident. A Complaint was lodged and police authority started case against the driver of the bus under Section 279/304A of the Indian Penal Code. The victim since deceased was a person of active habits and had all quality to prosper in his life in the near future. Wife of the victim lost consortium at her prime age due to the accident and applicants are passing life of uncertainty. 7. Pursuant to filing of this case the notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case. Opposite 3 party United India Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. 8. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence and hearing the learned Advocate was pleased to dismiss the claim case by observing and directing as follows: “It is true that the certified copies of the F.I.R. and charge-sheet in connection with Bhatar P.S. Case No.358 of 2013 dated 07.11.2013 have been marked as Ext. Nos.2 and 3 respectively, but those documents are not substantive piece of evidence and do not prove the petitioners' case. From the charge-sheet submitted it is found that the 1.0. examined many witnesses and in such situation, the petitioners could examine the witnesses examined by the I.O. to substantiate their case, but unfortunately the petitioners have not examined any of the said witnesses. From the oral and documentary evidence, the nature and extent of the injuries allegedly sustained by the deceased, cannot be ascertained at all. In this case the copy of P.M. report has been marked as Ext.4, but there is no whisper at all that Mintu Hazra died due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. It is also to be mentioned here that the post mortem examination was held on 28.10.2013 in connection with Katwa P.S. U.D. 4 Case No.240 of 2013 dated 27.10.2013, but any document regarding the said U.D. Case has not been produced and exhibited. Naturally it is not possible to know as to why the U.D. Case was started. So, from the evidence on record, there is nothing to establish that the death of Mintu Hazra was caused due to the injuries sustained in the alleged accident. I have already observed that there is no evidence to establish that Mintu Hazra was a passenger of the alleged bus and he fell down fro m the said bus and sustained injuries.” 9. The claimants appellants being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. 10. Heard learned advocate for the appellants claimants and learned advocate for the respondent No.1, United India Insurance Company Limited. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. 11. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the learned trial judge has erred in dismissing the case under section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 12. Learned Advocate for the appellant further submits that the FIR and the charge sheet submitted by the police authority were sufficient for consideration of the claim case filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also 5 submitted that as Section 163A is with regard to the principles of no fault liability, a strict proof of rash and negligent driving is not required. 13. Learned Advocate for the respondent No.1 Insurance Company disputes the submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant. 14. Upon considering the facts of the case and the fact that the case was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, which deals with the principle of no fault liability this Court is of the view that considering the statements made by the opposite party insurance company in the written statement and the fact that the vehicle owner did not contest the case and the fact that considering the FIR the police authority conducted investigation and submitted charge sheet are grounds to allow the application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 15. In different cases where it is not possible for the families of the victims to examine the witnesses of the accident, the victims of the family has to depend upon the police report to file the claim case. In case where the police report and the FIR and other materials on record inspires confidence in the minds of Court, the Court is not powerless to consider and award compensation in claim cases specifically under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act where it is based on the 6 principle of no fault liability and rash and negligence of the vehicle driver is not required to be proved. 16. Upon considering the fact that Motor Vehicle Claim Legislation is a beneficial legislation and considering the principles laid down under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and considering the written statement filed by the opposite party insurance company and the evidence adduced by P.W 1 and the charge sheet submitted by the police authority, this Court is of the view that the claim under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act ought to have been allowed. 17. However, with regard to the quantum of compensation, although the claimants have stated the income of the victim, but considering the issue at this stage as necessary amendments are made in the Motor Vehicles Act in which Section 164 of the said Act provides that compensation of Rs.5 lakh is to be awarded to the claimant of motor accident death cases uniformly, it would be just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.5 lakh to the claimants appellant. 18. Hence this appeal FMA 471 of 2020 stands allowed and the connection application CAN 2 of 2026 stands disposed of. The judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District 7 Judge, Second Court, Purba Barddhaman in MAC Case No.57/351 of 2013 date 19th August, 2016 is set aside. 19. The appellants claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.5 lakh from the respondent NO.1 insurance company along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till today. The respondent No.1 United India Insurance Company shall deposit Rs.5 lakh along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. 20. The appellants claimants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of all the necessary formalities. It is hereby clear that the compensation shall be withdrawn in equal share. 21. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)