Item No. 78 & 79 Ct 09 rup 05.08. 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 1182 of 2016 IA NO: CAN 3 of 2024 National Insurance Company Limited Vs Sudipta Kumar Mondal & Anr. With COT 38 of 2022 Sudipta Kumar Mondal alias Sudipto Mondal Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Mr. Rajesh Singh … for the appellant/insurance company in FMA 1182 of 2016 and respondent no.1 in COT 38 of 2022. Mr. Ashique Mondal … for the respondent No.1/claimant in FMA 1182 of 2016 and appellant in COT 38 of 2022. In Re: CAN 3 of 2024 Learned advocates for the parties are present. Heard learned advocates. The instant application being CAN 3 of 2024 is taken up for consideration. As there is mistake in the name of the claimant/respondent no.1 in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal as “Sudipta alias Sudipto Mondal” the same be rectified as “Sudipta Kumar Mondal” as stated in paragraph number six of the application. The order passed in CAN 3 of 2024 dated 11.07.2024 stands modified. The appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Learned Judge Special Court, Chinsurah, Hooghly in M.A.C. Case No. 177 of 2009. The case of the claimant before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: On 01.01.2008 at about 8.00 P.M. to 8.30 P.M. when the victim/Petitioner was riding the Motor Cycle bearing No.WB-16/5034 (Bajaj Pulsar) with his brother and returning from Simlagarh to Chinsurah through to the left side of G.T. Road under P.S.Pandua Dist. Hooghly at that time one No.4 Route Bus bearing No. -15A- 4542 was coming with high and reckless speed from the back side of the victim, i.e. from Pandua side to Chinsurah side and knocked down the victim's/Petitioner's Motor Cycle, as a result the victim/petitioner received serious bodily injury and his left hand was seriously injured. The local people rescued him and admitted him into Chinsurah I.B. Hopital at Chinsurah, Hooghly. 2 Thereafter, the victim/Petitioner was shifted into Repose clinic & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. at 20/C, Broad Street, Kolkata-700019 and his left hand was amputad on 04.01.2003. For the first time he was treated there since 01.01.2008 to 11.01.2008. Second time the victim/Petitioner admitted there from 24.01.2003 to 31.01.2008. The Victim/Petitioner at the young age of only 29 yours lost his left hand from his shoulder and he would lead his rest life as a defective and disable person. The Driver of Route No.4 Bus No. WB-15/A-4542 is responsible for the rash and negligent driving which caused the accident. Pursuant to the institution of this case, notice was issued upon the opposite parties. The opposite party/vehicle owner did not contest the case. However, the opposite party National Insurance Company Limited 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 the case is decided on contest against the 3 opposite party no.2 and exparte against opposite party no. 1. The petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs 2235828/- (twenty two lacs thirty five thousand eight hundred twenty eight). So also interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a on and from 3.3.12 till the payment of the compensation amount. The insurance company is directed to make payment of said amount within two months from the date hereof, in default the petitioner will be at liberty to set the decree on execution.” The appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.01.2015 passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. The respondent/claimant being also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Leaned Trial Court has filed cross-objection being COT 38 of 2022. Heard learned advocates for the appellant/insurance company and learned advocates for the respondent/claimant. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned advocates for the appellant/insurance company submits that the case of the claimant is doubtful as FIR was lodged after a period of four months from the date of incident. Learned advocate 4 further draws attention to the evidence of OPW No.2, vehicle owner and submits that the evidence of OPW No.2 will go to show that the vehicle being No. WB-15/A-4542 was not involved in the accident as the said vehicle plied in a particular route where the place of accident does not fall. Learned advocate also draws attention to evidence of OPW-1 and submits that the evidence of the President of Bus Owner Association of rout No.4 goes to show that the route where the bus bearing No. WB-15/A- 4542 plied does not cover the place of accident. Learned advocate also submits that in the event the case of the claimant is to be believed with regard to the accident the compensation awarded should be reduced which the learned advocate submitted is excessive. Learned advocate for the respondent/claimant submits that the claimant adduced evidence by examining himself and PW2 which will go to show that the vehicle bearing No. WB-15/A-4542 is involved in the accident. Learned advocate further submits that the chargesheet was submitted by the police authority which was considered by the Learned Trial Judge along with evidence of PW1 and PW2 and thereafter coming to the conclusion of involvement of vehicle No. WB-15/A-4542 . Learned advocate also submits that in the evidence of OPW 5 No.-2 he has stated that he did not give the copy of representation made to the Insurance Company with regard to the non-involvement of the vehicle to the police authority thus, the said document is a manufactured document for the purpose of this case and the same was considered by the Learned Trial Court. It is submitted by the learned advocate that the compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court does not involve future prospect. Thus, the compensation awarded should be enhanced. Upon considering the facts of the case and material on record although it is submitted that the FIR was lodged after a period of four months but it has been held in different judicial decisions that mere the delay in lodging the FIR is not a ground to disbelieve the case of the claimant. In Indian societies the family of injured person rushes to hospital not to police station. In the instant case, claimant has able to justify the delay in lodging FIR. Further upon perusal of the evidence of OPW No.2 although the said OPW No.2, vehicle owner has stated about non- involvement of the vehicle but the said vehicle owner did not appear in Court at the first instance and filed written statement to show the non-involvement. Moreover, the representation with regard to the non-involvement of the vehicle was made after a long period from the date of 6 submitting chargesheet and long after filing the claim case. Upon considering the issue with regard to route in which vehicle No. WB-15/A-4542 was alleged to be plied, this Court is of the view that the Learned Trial Court has considered the evidence of PW-1 and PW2 as well as OPW-2 and the chargesheet in coming to the conclusion about involvement of vehicle No. WB-15/A-4542. As President of Bus Association is not the competent authority to submit documents as to which route a particular vehicle plies or authorized to ply, the Regional Transport Authority was the competent authority who could have stated that which route vehicle No. WB-15/A-4542 was authorized to ply. In the instant case, no officer of the Regional Transport Authority was examined by the vehicle owner with regard to such issue. Further the investigating officer of the case was also not examined to obtain clarification about the driver of vehicle No. WB-15/A-4542. Considering the evidence adduced and the materials on record, this Court is of the view that the Learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in arriving at the finding about rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. WB-15/A-4542. However, with regard to the quantum of compensation, this Court is if the view that as the 7 future prospect was not taken into consideration and the compensations awarded on account of pain and suffering is meagre, the said compensation should be enhanced. In the event, the annual income of the claimant is considered to Rs. 1,52,100/-, future prospect of 40% being added 60,840, the net annual income comes to Rs.2,12,940/-. Multiplier of 17 being applied the total loss on account of disability comes to Rs.36,19,980. However, as disability was 80% the same is reduced to Rs.28,95,984/-. Medical expenses of Rs.23,378/- should be added and the compensation on account pain and suffering should be Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, Rs. 30,19,362/- is the total compensation, which the claimant is entitled from the National Insurance Company Limited as per arithmetical calculation. However, this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- is just and reasonable. Thus, the claimant/respondent is entitled to compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim case till today. The appellant/National Insurance Company Limited shall deposit cheque of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest @6% before the Registrar 8 General, High Court, Calcutta. Such deposit shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event, compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Judge is already deposited, the balance amount be deposited. The claimant/respondent will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities. The deficit court fees on the enhanced amount be paid within period of four weeks. The Trial Court Records, if any, be sent back at the special messenger costs to be put in by the respondent/claimant within one week. The appeal being FMA 1182 of 2016 and Cross-objection being COT 38 of 2022 stand disposed of accordingly. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) 9