IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 27.07.2026 Item No.8 Ali ct. no.9 FMA 808 of 2025 Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Aleya Begam Mallick & Ors. Mr. Rajesh Singh ….for the appellant Insurance Company. Mr. Ali Imam Shah …….for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants. Ms. Sucharita Paul …for the respondent No.8/Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.. 1. Learned advocates for the parties are present. 2. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. 3. The respondents before this Court were claimants in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18th day of February, 2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Burdwan, Purba Bardhaman, in MAC Case No. 93 of 2016. 4. The case of the claimants before the learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: “On 01.10.2016 at about 03-30/4.00 hours the victim, Sahidul Rahaman Mallick was walking for 2 his nature’s call along with Kancha portion of Arambagh-Burdwan Road near Mogolmari bus stand and at the material time a lorry bearing No. WB-67A/3974 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the victim and then dashed against a road side parked vehicle being No. WB-39/6021. The victim sustained fatal injury and it caused his death. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the said offending vehicle bearing No. WB-67A/3974. The victim used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month being a motor driver and commission agent. Pursuant to filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite parties vehicle owners did not contest the case. However, opposite party Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd. and opposite party Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 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, O R D E R E D That the instant case is allowed on contest against Opposite Party No.4, Insurance Company Magma HDI General. 3 Accordingly, Rs.22,12,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twelve Thousand Only) together with simple interest @ 6% p.a. thereon from the date of filing the case 15.11.2016 till the date of realization is awarded in favour of the petitioners/claimants. The claimants widow, namely (i) Aleya Begam Mallick, (ii) minor daughter, Sabana Parvin (iii) mother, Feroja Begam Mallick and (iv) father, Shaokat Mallik of the deceased are entitled to get in total Rs.22,12,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twelve Thousands only). The O.P. No.4, The Magma HDI General Insurance Company Limited is hereby directed to issue four separate A/C payee cheques @ Rs.5,53,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh fifty Three Thousands only) each, totaling of Rs.22,12,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Twelve Thousands only) together with 6% interest per annum thereon in the name of the claimants within 2 months from this order in default, the petitioners shall be at liberty to put the order into execution. The petitioner No. 1, Aleya Begam Mallick shall invest the sum of Rs.5,53,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Three Thousands Only) awarded in favour of the minor petitioner No. 2 namely, Sabana Parvin in any fixed deposit of Nationalized Bank or Post Office and thereafter she shall receive her cheque of Rs.5,53,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Fifty Three Thousands only). Copy of this award and order be handed over to the Ld. Advocates for the parties to this case free of cost forthwith. 4 The order shall take effect on deposit of Court Fees. Order be uploaded in CIS Bench Clerk to do the needful.” 5. The appellant/Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Court has come up with the instant appeal. 6. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned advocate for the respondents/claimants. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. 7. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal erred in considering the monthly income of the victim as Rs.10,000/- without any documents in this regard. Learned advocate draws attention to the evidence of PW 3 where the said witness could not produce any documents that the victim was his employee. Learned advocate also submits that the deduction on account of personal expenses ought to have been 1/3rd as father cannot be treated to be a dependent. 8. Learned advocate appearing for the claimants/respondents submits that the claimants have proved the income of the victim. Learned advocate further submits that father of the victim is a dependent. 5 9. Learned advocate relies upon the following judicial decisions: Jyoti and Others Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and Others reported in Civil Appeal Nos. 6209 and 6210 of 2022 (S.C.) and V. Pathmavathi & Ors. Versus Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. arising out of SLP (C ) No.23880 of 2022S.C.). 10. Upon perusing the evidence adduced and hearing the learned advocates this Court is of the view that the claimants have adduced the evidence with regard to the occupation of the victim as well as the income. Further as the employer of the victim deposed in this case it would be reasonable to consider the deposition of the employer PW 2 that the victim used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. However, as the decisions relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in AIR 2017 S.C. 3175 father cannot be treated to be a dependent in absence of specific evidence. Thus, this Court is of the view that 1/3rd should have been deducted on account of personal expenses. In the event monthly income is 6 considered as Rs.10,000/- the annual income comes to Rs.1,68,000. 1/3rd personal expenses should be deducted net annual income comes to Rs.1,12,000/-. By applying multiplier of 17 the total dependency loss comes to Rs.19,04,000/- Further the respondents/claimants are entitled to Rs.84,000/- on account of loss of consortium, funeral expenses and loss of estate. Thus, Rs.19,88,000/- is the total compensation by arithmetical calculation. However, this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-is just and reasonable. 11. Hence, this appeal FMA 808 of 2025 stands disposed. The judgment and award dated 18th day of February, 2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Burdwan, Purba Bardhaman, in MAC Case No. 93 of 2016 stands modified to the extent that the respondents/claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the appellant Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd. shall deposit Rs.20,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing claim case till today before the learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta. Such deposit shall be made within eight weeks from the date communication of this 7 order. In the event the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court is deposited no further deposit be made. The respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount upon compliance of necessary formalities. Balance amount if any with accrued interest be returned to Appellant Insurance Company. 1. This appeal FMA 808 of 2025 stands disposed of. 2. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)