1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury F.M.A. 462 of 2023 Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd. VERSUS Sukla Tewary & Ors. With F.M.A. No. 547 of 2023 Sukla Tewary and others VERSUS Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited and Another For the appellant/Insurance Co.: For the respondents/claimants: Mr. Soumalya Ganguli, Adv. Mr. S. Roy, Adv. Mr. Jayanta Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Ruxmini Basu Roy, Adv. Last Heard on: July 08, 2026 Judgment on: September 28, 2026 Biswaroop Chowdhury, J: The above appeals are taken up together for their interconnectiveness. The above appeals were filed assailing the Judgment and Award dated 17.11.2022 passed by Learned Additional District Judge Fast Track 3rd Court, 2 Sadar, Paschim Midnapur in MAC Case No. 570 of 2020 instituted with regard to the accident that took place on 13.12.2019. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus. While the victim deceased Saugata Tiwari was returning home from office by riding motor cycle being no. WB-34AU/4631 after keeping the same in the extreme left side of the road i.e. the morum portion of the road suddenly the offending tractor bearing no. WB-16-AZ-7790 came with excessive high speed endangering human life and safety to others without blowing horn rashly and negligently dashed the said motor cycle along with the deceased victim Saugata Tiwary with great force from behind. As a result the said victim was thrown away from the non-offending motor cycle and fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over his person and immediately after the accident the victim deceased was brought to the Salbani Rural Hospital and as his condition was serious he was referred the Midnapur Medical College and hospital. Thereafter he was shifted to Medica Super speciality hospital at Kolkata where he was treated by the Doctor as Indoor Patient for few days and subsequently died on 20.12.2019. The accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing no. WB-16-AZ-7790. Pursuant to the filing of this case notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case. However 3 opposite party Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the 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 ORDERED That the instant case being MACC No.570 of 2020 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the Opposite Party no.2 and ex-parte against the Opposite Party no.1 but without costs. The Opposite Party no.2 (Go Digit General Insurance Co. Ltd.) which indemnified the Opposite Party no.1, is hereby directed to pay the total compensation amount of Rs. 26,29,000/- (Rupees twenty six lacs twenty nine thousand) only together with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till full liquidation by issuing one A/C payee Cheque in the name of the claimant no. (1) Sukla Tewary u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 within two (02) months from the date of this order, failing which the claimant no. 1 shall be at liberty to put the order in execution. Let a copy of this order and judgment be supplied to the Opposite Party no.2 for information and compliance by the period fixed.’ 4 The appellant Insurance Company namely Go Digit General Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Ld. Trial Judge has preferred the appeal being FMA 462/2023. On the other hand the claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Judge has preferred the appeal 547/2023. Heard Learned Advocates for the claimants and Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company. Perused the evidence adduced and material on record. Learned Advocate of the appellants submits that initially the FIR named vehicle was WB-34G-8130 and subsequently by written intimation the said vehicle no. WB-16AZ-7790 is implicated. Learned Advocate further submits that the subsequent implication of this vehicle makes the case of the claimant doubtful. Learned Advocate also submits that investigation was carried out by the Insurance Company and as per the deposition of OPW. 1 who is the legal manager of the Insurance Company the offending vehicle is WB-34G/8150 and not WB-16AZ/7790 (Tractor). Learned Advocate further draws attention to the evidence of P.W. 3 wherein it is stated that the victim was treated at Medica Super Speciality Hospital but the said medical bill does not mention about road traffic accident. Learned Advocate submits that the appellants were not given opportunity for arguments. Thus unable to argue the matter Learned Advocate submits that one witness deposed in Court that seizure of the said vehicle was different on the date of accident contradicting to the deposition made by the 5 investigating officer. Learned advocate submitted that compensation awarded is excessive. Learned Advocate relies upon the following judicial decisions:- 1. Rajjamma VS Reliance Civil Appeal no. 5172/2025 SC. 2. Sekhar Surmise General Insurance SLP(C) NOS 281/282/2019 SC no. 3 Hindu others SGI Civil Appeal No. 6790/2025 SC New India Insurance Company VS. Velor SLP 321302111 SC. 3. Jagannath VS NEKRTC is bill no. 201991/2022 Civil being Karnataka High Court. 4. New India Assurance VS Sangita Gharkade FMA. No. 1631/2024 United India Insurance Company Limited VS Shri Shivankt Karnataka High Court. Learned Advocate appearing for the claimant/respondent submits that the Learned that the Ld. Trial Judge upon considering the evidence and by assigning reasons has come to the conclusion and have passed the award. Learned Advocate further submits that the Ld. Trial Judge ought to have considered the future prospect of 40 per cent instead of 50%. Learned Advocate also submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in not allowing the Medical expenses of Rs. 3,50,000/-. Learned Advocate submits that the compensation awarded should be enhanced. Now with regard to the first submission of Learned Advocate for the appellant that initially vehicle no. WB-34G/8130 was implicated and subsequently the number was changed to WB-16AZ/7790 it will appear that 6 the complaint was lodged against vehicle WB-34G/8130 by uncle of the victim who is not an eye witness. It is well settled that complaint with regard to road accident due to rash driving may be lodged against known vehicle or unknown vehicle. In the event complaint is lodged against unknown vehicle it is incumbent upon Police Authority to identify the vehicle trace out the same and proceed in accordance with law. Where the vehicle number is mentioned it is also incumbent upon Police Authority to investigate and ascertain as to whether allegations made are correct or not. As the object of investigation is to ascertain the allegations made in the FIR and if found correct to find out the real offender it is the duty of the Police Authority not only to ascertain the allegations made in the FIR but also to find out persons who are involved. As per the investigation report of the Police Authority during investigation it was learnt from the complainant and witnesses as well as owner and driver of offending vehicle that the original offending vehicle is WB-16AZ/7790 was involved in accident instead of vehicle No. WB-34G-8130. Upon perusal of the evidence of I.O. being OPW. 1 it is clear as to how the I.O. collected information of the actual offending vehicle. It will further appear that the I.O. being recalled was re-examined. In cross-examination by claimant he stated that no objection against the offending vehicle was ever raised before him from anyone during investigation. The Insurance Company although disputed the involvement of offending vehicle but neither examined the owner or driver of the said vehicle. Learned Trial Judge in his Judgment and Award has considered the evidence of 7 eye witnesses and the I.O. and has assigned reasons for coming to the findings about rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle. Now with regard to the quantum of compensation it appears that P.W. 4 in his cross-examination stated that the victim was a contractual employee at Vision Edge Solution at Kolkata. Thus the Learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in granting future prospect of 40% instead of 50%. However as filial consortium of Rs. 44,000/- was granted to one of the parents the total compensation should be enhanced by Rs. 44,000/-. Thus total compensation comes to Rs. 26,73,000/- by arithmetical calculation. However in view of this Court Rs. 26,50,000/- is just and reasonable. Hence both Appeals FMA-462 of 2023, and FMA-547 of 2023 stands disposed. Judgment and Award dated 17-11-2022 passed by Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track 3rd Court Sadar Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 570 of 2020 stands modified to the extent that the claimants/respondents are entitled to Rs. 26,50,000/- from Go. Digit General Insurance Company Limited. Go. Digit General Insurance Company Limited shall deposit before Registrar General High Court Calcutta Rs. 26,50,000/- Alongwith interest @6% per annum from date of filing claim case till today. Such deposit shall be made within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. In the event compensation awarded by Learned Trial Court is deposited balance deposit be made. The claimants will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities. 8 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.)