S/L 5 20.07.2026 Court No.9 Swd IN THE High COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 1736 of 2014 Basumati Bera & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Mr. Niranjan Maity, Mrs. Indrani Ghosh. … for the Appellant. Mrs. Sucharita Paul. … for the Respondent. 1. The learned Advocates for the parties are present. 2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 10.09.2013 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 7th Court, Alipore, South 24 Paraganas in M.A.C Case No.134 of 2006. The claimant appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 10.09.2013 by which the learned Trial Judge directed the vehicle owner to pay compensation of Rs.4,30,000/- and by not directing the respondent No.1 National Insurance Company Limited to pay the same has come up with the instant appeal. 4. Learned advocate for the appellant claimant submits that the insurance company did not challenge the policies filed by the claimant neither in the written statement nor did they put 2 any question to PW1 about the existence of policy. 5. The learned Advocate further submits that the insurance company produced the premium registrar which is only two pages where the vehicle numbers are not mentioned and it cannot be asserted as to whether the said vehicle was insured or not. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that the computer generated slips are required to be proved under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but has not been done in this case. 6. The learned Advocate relies upon the following two judicial decisions: Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.H. Mehar Singh & Anr. reported in 2000 ACJ 120, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Rout & Ors. reported in 1992(2) T.A.C 548. 7. The learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.1 National Insurance Company Limited submits that the insurance company has taken a specific stand that the vehicle was not insured with the said company and the policy relied upon by the claimant was not issued by the respondent No.1. 3 8. The learned Advocate further submits that by the relevant register containing premium receipt from 29.08.2005 was produced but nowhere the insurance policy number and the name of the vehicle owner appears. It is also submitted that the learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence of the insurance company has rightly directed the vehicle owner to pay the compensation. 9. Upon perusing the written statement submitted by the respondent No.1 National Insurance Company it appears that there is a specific denial that the policy relied upon by the claimant was not issued by the said insurance company. It further appears that the premium registrar which was exhibited by the insurance company did not contain the name of the vehicle owner. As it is an admitted position that the policy of insurance was entered into between an insurance company and the vehicle owner, the claimant who is not a privy to the contract of such policy cannot be said to have any personal knowledge about the particulars of the policy, and when any dispute arises and the insurance company denies the same, the remedy which was available to the claimant appellant is to examine the vehicle owner who would be in a best position to say as to whether a contract of insurance was 4 executed between the respondent No.1 National Insurance Company Limited and himself. He would be further in a position to give necessary particulars with regard to the policy as a vehicle owner is always aware about the facts regarding entering into a contract of insurance. However, the claimant appellant did not examine the vehicle owner. 10. Further, as observed by the learned Trial Judge, the appellant claimant did not examine the Regional Transport authority who would be in a position to say as to whether a particular vehicle was covered by any policy of insurance. 11. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any error passed by the learned Trial Judge. However, considering the fact that motor vehicle claim legislation is a beneficial legislation and it may be a difficult for a vehicle owner to pay the compensation amount within short period, it would be just and reasonable to remit the matter back to the learned Trial Court so that a reasonable opportunity is granted to the parties to examine the vehicle owner, the Regional Transport Authority or such other persons which may be necessary. 12. Thus, this appeal FMA 1736 of 2014 stands disposed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court to permit the parties to 5 adduce further evidence in terms of this order and to reconsider the decision of M.A.C Case No.134 of 2006. In reconsidering the issue of M.A.C Case No.134 of 2006 upon further evidence, the learned Trial Judge will not be influenced by any order passed by this Court and shall decide the same in accordance with law. As the case relates to the period of 2006 the learned Trial Court is requested to dispose of the claim case expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of communication this order. 13. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)