S/L 7 06.08.2026 Court No.9 Swd IN THE High COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 172 of 2017 Sk. Samir @ Samir Sekh Vs. The manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr. Mr. Ali Imam Shah. … for the Appellant/Claimant. Mrs. Gopa Das Mukherjee. … for the Respondent/Insurance Co. 1. Learned Advocates for the parties are present. 2. Heard learned Advocates. 3. The appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 3rd February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Burdwan in MAC Case No.31/174 of 2012. 4. The case of the claimant before the learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: On 24.11.2011 the claimant was proceeding with the truck towards Pandaveswar loaded with iron rods and suddenly the said vehicle fell down from the Bridge near Chakdola Burning Ghat and as a result, the petitioner and the Khalasi of the said 2 truck sustained severe bleeding injuries and were admitted at Asansol Sub-divisional Hospital. According to the petitioner, due to injuries received in the said accident, his two legs below the knee were amputated and for such amputation, he cannot perform any work. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has become permanently disabled. 5. Pursuant to filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite party vehicle owner and the opposite party Insurance Company. Opposite party vehicle owner although filed written statement but did not contest the case. However, opposite party Reliance General Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. 6. Learned Trial Judge by judgment and award dated 03.02.2016 was pleased to dismiss the claim case. 7. The claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Court has come up with the instant appeal. 8. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant claimant submits that the two legs of the claimant was amputated and the learned Trial Judge erred in dismissing the said case. 3 9. Learned Advocate further submits that the documents with regard to discharge from the SSKM hospital was also filed, but the same was also not considered. It is also submitted by the learned Advocate that the disability certificate ought to have been considered for awarding the compensation. 10. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant respondent No.1 Indusind General Insurance Company Limited submits that neither any injury report was collected by the police authority nor any injury report was filed in court. Thus, the learned Trial Judge did not err in refusing the prayer for compensation. 11. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate that the disability certificate does not mention that the said disability is caused due to road traffic accident. Thus, the said disability certificate should not be relied upon. 12. It is also submitted that considering the materials on record there arises some doubt as to whether the vehicle was driven by this petitioner claimant. Thus, the learned Trial Judge rightly dismissed the case of the claimant. 13. Upon hearing the learned Advocates and perusing the materials on record, it appears that on the following date of the accident the FIR was lodged by a local person. Pursuant to lodging of 4 the FIR, the police authority took up the investigation and upon completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet against the claimant Sk. Samir. It was further mentioned in the said charge-sheet that the claimant/accused is absconding. 14. It appears from the written statement of the vehicle owner that the claimant was engaged to drive the vehicle and was scheduled to move to Murshidabad and Sk. Jamshed accompanied him. Thus, from the written statement, the opposite party although made allegation against the claimant petitioner of his rash and negligent driving but did not dispute that he drove the vehicle. 15. Upon perusing the evidence of PW 3, Dr. Satinath Banerjee, it will appear that the claimant was admitted to hospital on 24.11.2011 and, thereafter, he was referred to Burdwan Medical College and Hospital. 16. Upon perusing the evidence of PW 2 who is the member of the board who issued the medical disability certificate, it appears that the said disability certificate was issued by the board of which he was a member and the disability was to the extent of 90%. Further, it appears from the exhibit that the claimant was admitted to SSKM 5 hospital on 25.11.2011 and was discharged on 24.02.2012. 17. Although, in the said disability certificate, it is not mentioned specifically that the disability was caused due to the accident and the claimant was not treated by any of the members of the board, but upon considering the nature of surgery undergone by the claimant, the investigation report of the police authority, the evidence of PW 3, the discharge certificate from the hospital, if taken as a whole, will give the idea that the said disability arose from accident. 18. Hence, upon considering the surgery undergone by the petitioner, the admission in Asansol Medical College and SSKM Hospital, the investigation report of the police authority, this Court is of the view that the learned Trial Judge ought to have allowed the claim case filed by the claimant appellant. 19. In the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that this appeal should be allowed. Hence, this appeal FMA 172 of 2017 stands allowed. The Judgment and Award dated 3rd February, 2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Burdwan in MAC Case No.31/174 of 2012 is set aside. The claimant appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- as per Section 164 of the Motor 6 Vehicles Act, 1988 from the respondent No.1 Indusind General Insurance Company Limited. 20. The respondent No.1 Indusind General Insurance Company Limited shall deposit cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 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. The deficit Court fees, if any, to be paid by the appellant before the learned Trial Court. 21. The amendment with regard to the respondent No.1 Indusind General Insurance Company Limited be carried out in the meantime. 22. Urgent Photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, J.)