Item No. 06 & 07 Ct 09 rup 18.08. 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 515 of 2026 With IA NO:CAN 1 of 2026 National Insurance Company Limited Vs Rangila Bibi & Ors. With COT 51 of 2026 Rangila Bibi & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. Mrs. Sucharita Paul. … for the appellant/insurance company in FMA 515 of 2026 and respondent no.1 in COT 51 of 2026. Mr. Jayanta Kr. Mondal, Mr. Anup Kumar Bag, Mr. Sayantan Rakshit. … for the respondents/claimants in FMA 515 of 2026 and appellants in COT 51 of 2026. Learned advocates for the parties are present. Heard learned advocates. 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 16.12.2025 passed by the Learned Judge, Bench VI, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.A.C. Case No. 351 of 2020. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: On 24.09.2020 at about 09.35 A. M. on Andul Road near Alampur More, the victim Salic Hossain, aged about 60 years, was going through Andul Road near Alampur more at the same time the offending vehicle being a Tanker bearing Registration No. WB- 768-0034 was proceeding at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the victim. As a result the victim suffered serious injury and was removed to Gabberia Hospital where he was declared Brought Dead 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 that the application u/s. 166 of M.V. Act dated 24.11.2020 is allowed on contest against the O.P. 2 No.2- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. and ex-parte against the O.P. No. 1- owner of offending vehicle, but without any order as to cost. The petitioners/claimants namely Rangila Bibi, Yusuf Sk. and Nurjahan are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 10,42,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the case till realisation within two (2) months from the date of this Judgement by three A/C Payee Cheques, out of which the petitioner/claimant Rangila Bibi is entitled to get Rs.3,64,000/-and the other two petitioners/claimants namely Yusuf Sk. and Mst. Nurjahan @ Nurjahan are entitled to get Rs.3,39,000/- each from the date of this judgement, failing which the claimants/petitioners are at liberty to put the order in execution. The O.P. No.2 is at liberty to recover the compensation amount from the O.P. No.1 Mrityunjoy Rai, the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. A copy of this Judgement be supplied to the O.P. No.2 free of cost for necessary compliance. The Petitioner/Claimant is directed to deposit Deficit Court Fees prior to receiving the Cheque, if unpaid.” The appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed 3 by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. The claimants/respondents being also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Judge has filed a cross- objection being COT 51 of 2026. The ground of challenge by the appellant/insurance company is that the income considered by the Learned Trial Judge for computing the compensation is excessive. Learned advocate for the insurance company submits that without any relevant documents, the Learned Trial Judge ought not to have considered the monthly income of Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned advocate further submits that compensation amount on account of general damages being Rs.2,50,000/- is excessive. Learned advocate for the claimants/respondents submits that the evidence of PW-1 claimant will go to show that the victim is to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Learned advocate draws attention to the evidence of PW-1 wherein the said witness stated that the income of the victim was Rs.15,000/- per month and he used to pay Rs.10,000/- to her and Rs.5000/- was kept in the custody of the victim. Learned advocate further submits that the employer of the victim came and 4 deposed thus the income ought to have been considered Rs.15,000/-. Upon hearing learned advocates and considering the facts of the case, this Court is of the view that the claimant/PW-1 being the wife of the victim in her cross-examination clearly stated that her husband’s income was Rs.15,000/- per month. She further stated that her husband was to give Rs.10,000/- to her and Rs.5000/- was kept with him. This specific statement made in the cross- examination will go to show that the income of the victim was Rs.15,000/- per month. When a person dies, and there is no document to prove the income, in the event the oral evidence of the victim’s family inspires confidence in the minds of Court regarding income and the occupation, the said income and occupation can be accepted by the Court. In the instant case, from the evidence of PW-1 itself, it is sufficient to consider and hold that the victim was a driver and his monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Further PW-3 has specifically stated in his cross-examination that the victim was his employee. He further stated the number of employees who is worked under him, the trade licence which is filed in the Court which will further strengthen the case of the claimants regarding victim being a driver of the road roller and the victim earning Rs.15,000/- per 5 month. Thus, this Court is of the view that the income of the victim should be considered to Rs.15,000/- per month. In the event, the income of the victim is considered to Rs.15,000/- per month, 1/3 being deducted on account of personal expenses, the net monthly income comes to Rs. 10,000/- per month. 10% being added on account of future prospect, the total monthly income comes to Rs.11,000/- per month. Thus, the annul dependency loss comes to Rs.1, 32,000/-. The multiplier of 9 being applied, the compensation comes to Rs. 11,88000/-. Further the claimants are entitled to compensation on account of general damages of Rs. 84,000/-. Thus total compensation comes to Rs.12,72,000/- by arithmetical calculation. However, this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- is just and reasonable. Hence, this appeal being FMA 515 of 2026 and connected application, if any, along with COT 51 of 2026 stand disposed of. The judgment and award dated 16.12.2025 passed by the passed by the Learned Judge, Bench VI, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.A.C. Case No. 351 of 2020 stands modified to the extent that the claimants/respondents are entitled to Rs. 12,50,000/- from the National Insurance Company 6 Limited. The appellant/National Insurance Company Limited shall deposit Rs.12,50,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till today. 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 deposit be made. The claimants/respondents will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities. With regard to the right of recovery by the appellant/insurance company as no appeal is preferred by the vehicle owner, respondent no.4, the findings of Learned Trial Judge is not interfered with. The deficit court fees be paid within four weeks. The Trial Court Records be sent back by special messenger cost to be put in by the claimants/respondents within one week. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) 7 8