In the High Court at Calcutta Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side 22.09.2026 Item No.6 Ali ct. no.9 FMA 589 of 2026 With IA No.:CAN/2/2026, CAN/3/2026 Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kalipada Jana & Ors. Mr. Soumalya Ganguli …… for the appellant/Insurance Co. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy ….. for the respondents/claimants 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 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 25th September, 2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in MAC Case No. 473 of 2022. 4. The case of the claimants before the learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: “At the material time on 31.05.2022 at about 06:30 A.M. when the victim was going towards Sutahata bazaar from Tajnagar through Tajnagar 2 Sutahata pitch road on foot keeping the extreme left side of the said road and when the victim reached near Nimtala more at that time one motor cycle being no. WB-30AE/3598 which was going towards Sutahata from Horekhali with extreme high speed, endangering to human life and safety, in a rash and negligent manner, without blowing any horn dashed the victim with great force. As a result the victim fell down on the road and sustained grievous bleeding injury all over the body specially on head and the said multiple fracture on rt.ribs and rt.scapula. After the accident the victim was taken to Haldia SD Hospital with the help of local people on 31.05.2022. From there the victim was taken to Narayani Nursinghome at Chakkamina, Tamluk, Purba Mednipur but the victim died there on 03.06.2022 at 09.00 PM. The death of the victim took place due to use of vehicle WB 30AE/3598 motor cycle”. 5. Pursuant to the filing of this case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case by filing written statement. However, opposite party Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Ltd. contested the case by filing written 3 statement. Issues were framed and evidences were adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the issues framed and evidence adduced and upon hearing the learned Advocates was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows: “Hence, it is, O R D E R E D that claimants are jointly entitled to get an award of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation from insurance company namely Cholamandalam MS Gen. Insurance Co. Ltd. Insurance Company is liable to pay the above amount to the claimants namely Kalipada Jana, Dipali Jana and Tumpa Jana Das. The above amount would carry an interest at the rate of 6% P.A. which would be calculated on the above amount from the date of this award till the date of actual realization thereof, in default of which, claimants would be at liberty to take recourse to law for realization of above amount. The insurance company is directed to divide equally the total amount of compensation along with interest, if any, and credit said equal amount directly to the bank accounts of each of the claimants as soon as said bank account details are furnished by claimants to them. Payment would be made strictly upon verification of above accounts by insurance company. Needless to mention that said bank accounts would be verified by insurance company either on the same date 4 on which said bank accounts details are furnished by claimants to the insurance company or on the next day and not beyond said date, and payment would be credited within an hour of completion of process of verification of bank accounts of claimants. Claimants are directed to furnish their up to date bank account details to the insurance company within fifteen days from this date. In the event they have no bank accounts, they are to open the bank accounts at once, and furnish the details of their bank accounts to insurance company within the above time limit. While calculating interest, number of days of delay in furnishing bank account details by claimants would not be taken into account by insurance company. After making payment by crediting the amount of compensation along with interest, if any, directly to the bank accounts of claimants, a compliance report would be filed by insurance company in the Tribunal”. 6. The appellant Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. The claimants/respondents being also aggrieved with regard to the grant of interest has filed a cross objection. 7. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants. 5 8. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. 9. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the investigation report of the investigating officer appointed by the Insurance Company will go to show that neither the vehicle involved nor the driver is involved in the accident. Learned Advocate draws the attention to the evidence of OPW-1 who has investigated the issue with regard to accident. 10. Learned Advocate further submits that the investigation report was marked without objection and the same should be relied upon. Learned Advocate also submits that from the evidence of OPW-1 and OPW-2 the involvement of the vehicle become suspicious. 11. Learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents submits that although the Insurance Company is disputing the charge-sheet which is issued against the driver of the offending vehicle but neither the said driver nor the I.O. was examined by the Insurance Company. 12. Learned Advocate relies upon the following judicial decisions: i) Ajay Singh Vs. Khacheru & Ors. reported in 2025 INSC 9. 6 ii) Sanju Bai Prajapati vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Special Leave Petition (C) No. 13455 of 2023 (Supreme Court of India) 13. Learned Advocate submits that from the evidence adduced by the witness and the charge sheet of the police the case of the claimants cannot be disbelieved. With regard to the first submission of the learned Advocate that the vehicle being No.WB 30AE/3598 is not involved as per the investigator’s reports and the driver of the said vehicle is also not involved in the accident it appears that neither the driver of the said vehicle nor the vehicle owner was examined by the Insurance Company to disprove that the vehicle WB 30AE/3598 is involved in the accident. This issue was considered by the learned Trial Judge and was dealt with by making the following observation. “Therefore, version of OPW-1 and OPW-2 as regards what was told to them by owner and rider is nothing less than hearsay evidence which has no approval of law. In view of the facts so emerging as discussed herein above, it would be unsafe to look askance at the version of claimants as regards the accident in which their mother died. The initial 7 burden, therefore, which rested upon the claimants has been discharged by them and shifted to the insurance company which, however, has not been shunted by them; based on the principles of preponderance of probability governing the field of proof of claim for compensation, this tribunal, can not disbelieve the fact of accident and resultant impact of unfortunate death of the deceased Shibani Jana due to use of offending motor cycle by Subrata Manna, rider thereof”. 14. It further appears from the observation of the learned Trial Judge that the driver of the offending vehicle has pleaded guilty before learned Judicial Magistrate, Haldia on 19.07.2024 when the said case was transferred for disposal by learned ACJM, Haldia. 15. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the claimants as well as by the Insurance Company and the documents submitted and the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge in arriving at the findings about rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No. WB 30AE/3598 motor cycle this Court is of the view that the appellant have not made out any case for interference with the findings of the learned Trial Judge. However as cross objection is filed with regard to the interest 8 @ 6% per annum should be awarded from the date of filing of the claim case till today. 16. Hence, this appeal FMA 589 of 2026 stands disposed along with COT 39 of 2026 which is also treated as day’s list. The judgment and award dated 25th September, 2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track, 1st Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur, in MAC Case No. 473 of 2022 stands affirmed with regard to the principal compensation awarded. However, with regard to the interest the same stand modified to the extent that the interest @ 6% per annum should be awarded from the date of filing of the claim case till today. 17. As the compensation amount awarded by the learned Trial Judge is already deposited the claimants/respondents are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount upon compliance of necessary formalities. However, with regard to further payment of interest the same may be paid by the appellant Insurance Company within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. The withdrawal of the compensation shall be in equal share. 18. This appeal FMA 589 of 2026 along with COT 39 of 2026 stand disposed of. 9 19. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)