1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury F.M.A. 814 of 2025 Jaya Rana & Ors. VERSUS The National Insurance Company Limited & Anr. For the appellants: For the respondent/Insurance Company: Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Adv. Mrs. Ruxmini Basu Roy, Adv. Mr. Argha Bhattacharjee, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv. Last Heard on: September 16, 2026 Judgment on: September 28, 2026 Biswaroop Chowdhury, J: The Appellant before the Court was a claimant in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 30-08-2024 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 6th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 588 of 2020. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:- 2 On 09-11-2020 at about 10.00 A.M. the deceased went to Bajuara Bazar from his Doctor’s Chamber by walking through Neradeul to Keshpur him self to the extreme left side on the Muram (Literate) portion of the said road and when he reached near Kathpale at that time the offending vehicle was coming from Neurdeul side towards Keshpur side through Neardeul Keshpur Pitch road with a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly the driver of the motor cycle lost his control over the Motor Cycle and applied sudden break on motor cycle and as a result the said motor cycle dashed the deceased Sibaprasad Rana who fell down on the ground and the Motor Cycle was overturned on the ground. The deceased got head injury, chest injury and injury on other vital part of the body and immediately the deceased was taken to Keshpur Reveal Hospital on the same day i.e. on 09/11/2020. He was referred to Medinipur Medical College and Hospital. M.O. of the Medical College and Hospital declared him dead. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driving of the driver of the offending Motor Cycle being regd No. WB-42AD 6962, who drove the vehicle violating the traffic rules endangering the life of the pedestrian. Pursuant to the filing of the case notice was issued upon the opposite parties. Opposite Party vehicle owner did not contest the case. However opposite party Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon hearing the Learned Advocates and upon perusing the evidence 3 adduced was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows:- ‘Hence it is ORDERED that the motor accident claim case no. 588 of 2020 u/s. 166 of MV Act is allowed on contest in part against the Insurer the National Insurance Company Ltd. and ex-parte against the registered owner Rabi Jadab but without cost. Thus the claimants are entitled to Rs. 13,82,600/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh Eighty two Thousand Six Hundred) only as compensation. The National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to pay award amount within 60 days from date of this judgment along with interest at the rate of 5 (five)% per annum from date of filing of the claim case (19.12.2020) till realization of award amount by depositing 5(five)( amount payee cheques in the name of claimants. The cheque in the name of Debasish Rana, minor son of deceased and claimant No.5 Diya Rana, minor daughter of deceased will be kept in FDR in any nationalized Bank or in post office scheme and will not be encashed till their majority. The claimants/appellants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded has come up with the instant appeal. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and learned Advocate for the respondent. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. 4 Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the Learned trial Judge erred in considering the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.8,000/- although documents of educational qualification was filed contending monthly income of Rs. 24,000/-. Learned Advocate further submits that the interest awarded at 5% p.a. is also meagre. Learned Advocate also submits that the compensation awarded is meagre and should be enhanced. Learned Advocate for the Respondent Insurance Company submits that the victim was a quack doctor and was not entitled to practice. Learned Advocate relies upon the decision of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjib Das VS State of W.B. and ors. reported MANU/WB/0643/2013 and submits that in terms of the said decision the victim cannot be said to be a Doctor and not entitled to use the prefix doctor or dr. Learned Advocate also submits that as per certificate of Registration issued by Alternative Medical Council Calcutta the certificate must be renewed within 31st March every year and there is no proof that certificate was renewed. It is submitted that compensation awarded need not be interfered with. Before proceeding to decide the material in issue it is necessary to consider the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of Sanjib Das VS State of W.B. and ors (supra). In the said case the Hon’ble Division Bench observed as follows:- ‘16. Our attention has also been drawn to Section 6 of the Indian Medical Degrees Act, 1916. The alternative medicines practiced by persons to whom 5 diplomas degrees certificates as licenses have been given by the respondent Nos. 16 to 21 may receive favourable acceptance by institutions and personalities. Such acceptance does not in any manner confer a right on such persons to use the prefix doctors or dr. to their name. A person who has obtained a medical qualification in terms of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and whose name appears in the register of medical practioners as contemplated under the said Act of 1956, is entitled to use the prefix doctor or dr. To allow any other person to use such prefix and to practice medicines would be against the scheme of the Indian Medical Council Act 1956 and the Indian Medical Degrees Act 1916.’ Thus from the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench it is clear that persons who have obtained decree with regard to alternative medicines although are not permitted to use the prefix doctor or dr. to their name but are not disentitled to practice in the said field of medicine and give necessary advice with regard to the said medicine. Now upon perusal of the certificate of Registration issued by Alternative Medical Council Calcutta the following instructions are noted:- 1. The Certificate must be renewed within 31st March every year, otherwise the name will be striken off from the council Register. 2. The Practitioner should inform to the Council immediately of any change in his/her address. 6 3. The practitioners are eligible to practice in Alternative Medicines and issue Sickness Certificate. 4. Registration from Medical Council of India is not required to practice the alternative system of medicines as per their letter No. MCI- 31(I)/96 Med/10984. 5. The Course is duly approved and recognised by the open International University for C.M. 6. ‘Alternative System of Medicines’ are in Conformity with constitution and Laws of the Land. Thus upon perusal of instructions issued by the Alternate Medical Council Calcutta it is clear that the practitioners are eligible to practice in Alternative Medicines and issue Sickness Certificate, and registration from Medical Council of India is not required to practice the alternative system of medicines. Now with regard to the requirement of the Certificate being renewed within 31st March every year as the victim is not a party and cannot defend and prove that certificate was renewed such plea should not be entertained. Further a non renewal of certificate does not disentitle a practitioner to practice after the date of expiry but the same empowers the Alternative Medical Council Calcutta to strike off the name of the practitioner in accordance with law. Moreover there is no evidence of the Insurance Company that victim’s name was struck off from the Council Register. Thus the argument of the Insurance 7 Company about the doubt of the victim continuing the practice in medicines cannot be sustained. With regard to the quantum of monthly income it appears that the claimants did not submit any documents regarding Bank Pass Book or Income Tax Return to corroborate the evidence of Income of the deceased. Further the claimants did not even give particulars about number of patients the victim used to examine and fees charged. However considering the age of the victim, nature of profession and the period of practice this Court is of the view that it would be reasonable to consider the monthly income of the victim as Rs. 12,000/-. In the event monthly income comes is Rs. 12,000/- the future prospect of 40% being added total monthly income comes to Rs. 16,800/- 1/3rd should be deducted on account of personal expenses not monthly income comes to Rs. 11,200/-. The yearly income comes to Rs. 1,34,400/-. The multiplier of 17 applied the total dependency loss comes to Rs. 22,84,800/-. Further the claimants are entitled Rs. 84,000/- on account of loss of consortium loss of estate and funeral expenses. Thus total compensation comes to Rs. 23,68,800/- by arithmetical calculation. However this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs. 23 lakh is just and reasonable. Hence this Appeal FMA-814 of 2025 stands disposed. The Judgment and Award dated 30.08.2024 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 6th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No.588 of 2020 stands modified to the extent 8 that the claimants/appellants are entitled to Rs. 23 lakh along with interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till today. The respondent National Insurance Company Limited shall deposit Rs. 23 lakh alongwith interest @6% per annum before Registrar General High Court Calcutta. Such deposit shall be made within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this Order. In the event compensation awarded by Trial Court is deposited or paid balance deposit be made. The appellants are entitled to withdraw the compensation on compliance of necessary formalities. Deficit Court fees be paid within 4 weeks. TCR be returned by Special Messenger Cost to be deposited by Appellant within 10 days. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities. (Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)