IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE 19.08.2026 Item No.7-8 Ali ct. no.9 FMA 3381 of 2016 National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Suchitra Parichha & Ors. With COT 105 of 2018 Suchitra Parichha & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. Mr. Rajesh Singh ….for the appellant/Insurance Company in FMA 3381/2016 and respondent No.1 in COT 105/2018. Mr. Nonigopal Chakraborty ……. for the respondents/claimants in FMA 3381/2016 and appellants in COT 105/2018. 1. Learned advocates for the parties are present. 2. Heard the learned advocates. 3. The appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Re-designated Court, Paschim Medinipur, in MAC Case No. 124 of 2013. 2 4. The case of the claimants before the learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: “At the material time on 28.03.2012 at about 06:30 p.m. Sri Biswadev Chatterjee and Sri Anupam Parichha were going from Belda towards Mokrampur Bazar and thereafter Sri Biswadeb Chatterjee stopped the vehicle of TVS-XL Super before Mokrampur Bazar at 6:30 p.m. At that time Anupam Parichha was standing at the side of Road then one offending vehicle bearing No. WB36/6035 came from Narayangarh side with tremendous high speed and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed Sri Anupam Parichha. As a result Anupam Parichha sustained grievous injuries in the head and whole body and immediately he was admitted into Mokrampur Health Centre by Biswadeb Chatterjee and ors. From the said hospital he was referred to Midnapur Sadar Hospital by Private Ambulance and thereafter he was referred to NRS/SSKM Hospital. On the way he became seriously ill. As a result he was admitted to Mourigram West Bank Hospital and thereafter he was treated at Neuro Science Institute Mallick Bazar, Kolkata. From Neuro Science Institute Mallick Bazar, Kolkata the victim was admitted in SSKM Hospital and his prolonged treatment continued till 18.07.2012. 3 During treatment huge amount was spent for medicine, X-Ray Blood and also two Attendants on the said period. As a result of the accident Anupam Parichha died on 18.07.2012. 5. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Maruti Van at a very high speed in violation of the Traffic Rules. 6. Pursuant to the filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case. However, opposite party National Insurance Company 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 advocates was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows: O R D E R E D “That the instant claim case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the O.P.2/National Insurance Company Ltd. and ex parte against the rest. The claimants do get an award to the extent of Rs. 21,34,500/- from O.P. 2/National Insurance Company Ltd. O.P.2/National Insurance Company Ltd. is hereby directed to issue account payee cheque in favour of the present petitioners along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application in equal 4 shares within three months failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest @ 7% per annum till the arrear amount is liquidated in full. Suchitra Parichha being the mother and natural guardian of minor Paramita Parichha shall receive her cheque as well as the portion of share of her minor daughter from this tribunal and the share to the extent of such minor shall be deposited in a Government Scheme till the minor attains her majority and the same be produced before this tribunal within one month from the date of delivery of such cheque to her. Madhurirani Parichha, mother of the deceased, shall have liberty to receive her cheque from this tribunal directly as ordered. The petitioners are directed to deposit the balance court fee as regard the award as passed by this tribunal. Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the petitioner and also to the Insurance Company, free of cost, for intimation and compliance”. 7. The appellant National Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Court has come up with the instant appeal. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded has filed Cross Objection. 8. Heard learned advocate for the appellant National Insurance Company and learned advocate for the 5 respondent Nos. 1 and 2/claimants. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. 9. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge erred in considering the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- without any documentary evidence. 10. Learned advocate further submits that the compensation awarded on account of general damages to the extent of Rs.6,02,500/-is excessive. 11. Learned advocate also submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Trial Court should be reduced. 12. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 disputes the submission of the learned advocate for the appellant and submits that although the certificate which was issued by the Panchayat authority was filed in Court learned Trial Judge erred in considering the monthly income of the victim as Rs.10,000/-. 13. Learned advocate further submits that the learned Trial Judge erred in not awarding any future prospect. 14. With regard to the submission of learned advocate for the appellant with regard to monthly income of Rs.10,000/- this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Judge has assigned reasons for 6 considering the income of the victim as Rs.10,000/-. Moreover nobody has come on behalf of the Panchayat authority to adduce evidence. Thus, the learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in considering the monthly income of the victim as Rs.10,000/-. In the event the monthly income is considered as Rs.10,000/- the annual income comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Future prospect of 25% being added which is Rs.30,000/- the total monthly income comes to Rs.1,50,000/-. 1/3rd should be deducted on account of personal expenses and the annual dependency loss come to Rs.1,00,000/-. The multiplier of 14 applied the total dependency loss comes to Rs.14,00,000/-. The medical expenses incurred being added comes to Rs.3,32,000/-. The general damages in the instant case should be Rs.1,32,000/-. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.18,64,000/- by arithmetical calculation. However, this Court is of the view that the compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- is just and reasonable. 15. Hence this appeal FMA 3381 of 2016 read with COT 105 of 2018 stand disposed of. The judgment and award dated 22.08.2014 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Re-designated Court, Paschim Medinipur, in MAC Case No. 124 of 2013 7 stands modified to the extent that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 2A are entitled to Rs.18,50,000/- from the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. The appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. shall deposit Rs.18,50,000/- 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 of communication of this order. 16. It is further clarified that the respondent No. 1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,00,000/, respondent No.2 is entitled to compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and the respondent No. 2A is entitled to compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The claimants will be entitled to withdraw the share of compensation along with interest upon compliance of necessary formalities. 17. It is further clarified that in the event compensation awarded by the learned Trial Judge is already deposited no further deposit be made. 18. Upon withdrawal of the compensation amount by the claimants the balance amount, if any, with accrued interest shall be returned to the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. 19. Release of the claim amount shall be made expeditiously. 8 20. This appeal FMA 3381 of 2016 with COT 105 of 2018 stand disposed of. 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.)