Item No. 05 & 06 Ct 09 rup 19.08. 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMAT (MV) 493 of 2022 Krishna Mishra & Ors. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. With COT 59 of 2026 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Krishna Mishra & Ors. Mr. Pringal Bhattacharya, Mr. Rajdeep Sinha. … for the appellant in FMAT (MV) 493 of 2022 and respondents in COT 59 of 2026. Mr. Sanjoy Paul. … for the respondent no.1/insurance Co. in FMAT (MV) 493 of 2022 and appellant in COT 59 of 2026 . Learned advocates for the parties are present. Heard learned advocates. The appellants before this Court were the claimants in a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 12 of 2016. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: On 8.9.14 at about 6.30 P.M. the victim was proceeding by a bus bearing no-WB-19G/1260 through J.L Neheru road from North to South. When the driver of the said bus reached infront of premises No 31. J.L Nehru road near Bazar Kolkata the victim attempted to get down from the bus. The driver of the said bus started the bus suddenly without any caution. As a result the victim sustained grievous injury all over the body specially on head. After accident the victim was taken to N.R.S Medical college and hospital at Kolkata, but the victim died there on 11.9.14 during the course of treatment. The accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No-WB-19G/1260 Bus. Pursuant to the filing 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: 2 “Hence, it is, ORDERED that, the MAC Case No- 12/16 Under Section 166 of the M. V. Act is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No-2 and exparte against the OP No-1, but without any order of Cost. The Claimants do get an award of compensation of Rs.10,78,000/-( Rupees ten lacs seventy eight thousand) from the Opposite Party No-2, along with 6% interest per annum from the date of the filing of the case till the date of realization. The Opposite Party No-2 is directed to pay the award of compensation to the Claimants by way of four (04) Account Payee Cheques, one of Rs.04 lacs in the name of the Petitioner No-1 namely Krishna Mishra & one (01) cheque of amount of Rs. 04 lacs in the name of petitioner No.2 namely minor Krishnendu Mishra and remaining amount by issuing two (02) cheques of equal amount in the name of petitioners No-3 & 4 namely Minati Mishra and Ranjit Mishra within two months from the date of passing of this Judgment through this Tribunal, failing which the Claimant's will be at liberty to realize the said sum of money in accordance with the provisions of Law. Claimant No-1 namely Krishna Mishra is directed to deposit the amount of Claimant No-2 3 Minor Krishnendu Mishra with any profitable Scheme in any Nationalized Bank / Post Office situated within their Jurisdiction till he attains majority. Claimant No-1 is given liberty to withdraw the interest therefrom, time to time if so required for the benefit and welfare of her son. Let a copy of this order be supplied to the Opposite Party No-2 through the Ld Advocate on record for information and compliance”. The appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. Similarly the respondent/National Insurance Company Limited being also aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Judge has filed cross-objection, being COT 59 of 2026. Heard learned advocates for the appellants/claimants and learned advocates for the respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned advocate for the appellants/claimants submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in considering the income of the victim to be Rs. 5000/- per month although evidence was adduced by the claimants that the income of the victim was Rs.9000/- per month. 4 Learned advocate further submits that the evidence of claimants was corroborated by the evidence of the employer of the victim who stated that salary of the victim was Rs. 9000/- per month. Learned advocate also submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in ignoring the evidence of PW-3, who was the employer of the victim. Learned advocate relies upon the following judicial decisions. 1) Kirti and Another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2021) 2 SCC 166 2) Chapa Ghosh (Roy) & Ors. Vs. Chalamandalam M.S. General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 5033. Learned advocate representing respondent/ National Insurance Company Limited submits that the claimants failed to prove the income of the deceased and the Learned Trial Judge rightly considered the notional income of Rs.5000/- per month. Learned advocate further submits that the evidence of PW-3 and the certificate issued by him is after long period from the date of accident, thus, the certificate cannot be relied upon and the Learned Trial Judge has assigned reasons as to why the evidence of PW-3 cannot be relied. 5 Learned advocate also submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in considering the personal deduction as ¼ in stead of 1/3 as the father of the victim cannot be considered to be a dependent. Learned advocate relies upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others reported in 2017 (4) T.A.C. (S.C); in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in (2009) 3 WBLR (SC) 700 and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sima Ghosal & Others (FMA 4 of 2022 with COT 36 of 2021) (Calcutta High Court). With regard to the issue of income of the victim, it appears that the claimant has stated in the claim petition that the income was Rs.9000/- per month and the victim was Jari worker under Madina Jari Stores. In the evidence adduced by the said claimant, Krishna Mishra, being PW-1 the claimant stated that her husband was a Jari worker of Madina Jari Stores proprietor of Abdul Harisa at Dimerahat and he used to earn Rs.9000/- per month. In the cross-examination of PW-1, stated that her husband went to Kolkata to purchase material of Jari work. She further stated that her husband was working under a person to 6 perform jari work where he used to go Kolkata occasionally. Thus from the cross-examination of PW-1, it will be clear that the victim was engaged as jari worker and the place was Madina Jari Stores whose proprietor was Abdul Harisa. The occupation of the victim is proved in the evidence of PW-1. Although from the evidence of PW-1, the income may not be proved but upon considering the evidence of PW-3, it appears that PW-3 has stated that the victim Raj Kumar Mishra was working under him and he used to pay him salary of Rs.9000/- per month. PW-3 has not only adduced oral evidence, but also issued a certificate in that regard. As it is pointed out by the learned advocate that the employer being PW-3 has issued the certificate without consulting any document, this Court is of the view that when an undertaking is not large and several workers do not work it is not always necessary for the employer or the management of the undertaking to consult any document to ascertain the income of an employee. From the evidence of PW-3, it is clear that he had the knowledge that he used to pay the victim of Rs.9000/- per month. Thus, the contention that the said witness did not consult any document to set the monthly income of the victim cannot be sustained. 7 Further considering the nature of the work of the victim, the number of members of the family and the age, this Court is of the view that it is not unusual for the said victim to earn Rs.9000/- per month. Thus, in the event monthly income of the victim is Rs.9000/- the annual income comes Rs.1,80,000/-. 40% future prospect being added the annual income comes to Rs. 1,51,200/-. Although the learned advocate appearing for the claimants/appellants submits that in the decisions of Sarla Verma (Smt.) in paragraph 31 (Supra) it is provided that where the deceased was a bachelor and the claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a different principle but in the said paragraph, it is also observed that the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as dependant. The learned advocate submits that the father will not be considered as a dependent only if the victim was a bachelor. However, this Court is unable to accept the ground submitted by the learned advocate. In paragraph 30 of the decision of Sarla Verma, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that though in some cases the deduction to be made towards personal and living expenses which is calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok Chandra the 8 general practice is to apply standardised deductions and having considered several subsequent decisions of the Hon’ble Court, the Hon’ble Court was of the view that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, should be 1/3 where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3, ¼ where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6 and 1/5 where the number of dependent family members exceeds six. Thus, in paragraph 30 of the said decision, the Hon’ble Court observed with regard to the principles to be followed depending upon the total number of dependants. However, in the said paragraph, it is not observed as to who are the dependents but in the paragraph 31 the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that in the usual course father is not the dependent. Thus, upon reading paragraph 30 and 31 together, it is clear that father is the dependent only in special circumstances. In the instant case, the claimants could not show any special situation as to why father will be treated to be the dependent. Thus, 1/3 should be deducted on ground of personal deduction. Thus annual dependency loss comes to Rs. 1,08,000/-. The multiplier 16 applied, total dependency loss 9 comes to Rs. 16,12,800/-. However, the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.70,000/- as general damages. The total compensation thus comes by arithmetical calculation to Rs. 16,82,800/-. However, this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs. 16,50,000/- is just and reasonable. Hence, this appeal being FMAT (MV) 493 of 2022 along with COT 59 of 2026 stand disposed of. The judgment and award dated 20.04.2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track 2nd Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 12 of 2016 stands modified to the extent that the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs. 16,50,000/- from the National Insurance Company Limited. The respondent/National Insurance Company Limited shall deposit Rs.16,50,000/-/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. 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/appellants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of 10 necessary formalities. The deficit court fees be paid on the enhanced compensation within four weeks. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.) 11