1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury F.M.A. 3204 of 2016 With F.M.A.T. No. 259 of 2016 With IA NO: CAN 5 of 2019 (Old No: CAN 8126 of 2019) CAN 6 of 2026, CAN 7 of 2026 The National Insurance Company Limited VERSUS Smt. Chanchala @ Kalpana Muchi (Ruidas) & Ors. For the appellant: For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Paul, Adv. Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, Adv. Last Heard on: September 24, 2026 Judgment on: October 30, 2026 Biswaroop Chowdhury, J: The Appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 9th December 2015 passed by Learned Additional District 2 Judge 4th Court Asansol Paschim Bardhaman in MAC Case No-12 of 2013/142 of 2012. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Judge may be summed up thus:- On 4.9.2012 at about 6.15 P.M. when the victim was proceeding to his house from Durlavpur by riding his motor cycle being No. WB-44D/1843 at that time on Durlavpur Majia Road near Nandanpur under P.S. Mejia one Truck being No. WB-41/7747 driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed the motor cyclist from behind. As a result of such accident the motor cyclist fell down on the road and died on the spot. The driver of the offending truck was solely responsible for the said accident. Pursuant to filing of the case notice was issued to 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 perusing the evidence adduced and upon hearing the Learned Advocates was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows:- ‘Accordingly MAC Case No. 12/2013 (142/2011) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is allowed ex-parte against the OP-1 Chandeshwar Bhagat and on contest against the OP 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. 3 The claimants do get an award of Rs. 33,28,163.20/- alongwith interest as stated above. The OP2 National Alliance Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to issue an A/C payee cheque of Rs. 4,79,738/- in favour of petitioner No-1 Chanchala @ Kalpana Muchi (Ruidas) and the OP No.2 is also directed to issue cheque of Rs. 4,74,738/- each in favour of petitioners No. 2 Mala Muchi No. 3 Ajay Muchi 4. Pinki Muchi (Ruidas) 5. Bijay Muchi (Minor) 6. Raja Muchi (Minor) and 7. Mani Muchi (Minor) along with interest @8.25% Per annum on the award sum from the date of application till the date of realization for each of the claimant within two months (60 days) from the date of this Judgment, failing which the claimants will be at liberty to put the award into execution.’ The Appellant National Insurance Company Limited being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant and Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that the vehicle number is not mentioned in the FIR, thus the case of the claimants is doubtful. Learned Advocate further submits that P.W. 2 who deposed in Court as witness was not cited by the Police Authority as charge sheet witness. Learned Advocate also 4 submits that the principal compensation granted and interest awarded is excessive. Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants submits that the Police Authority upon investigation submitted charge sheet against driver of offending vehicle, and the I.O. was not examined by the Insurance Company thus the plea of the Insurance Company at this stage cannot be sustained. Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decision:- Ranjeet and Anr. VS Abdul Kayam Nels and Anr. SLP(C) No. 10351/2019. (Supreme Court of India). With regard to the first submission of Appellant that the vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR, it is to be remembered that FIR with regard to accident may be lodged against known vehicle or against unknown vehicle. In the event FIR is against un-known vehicle it is incumbent upon the Police Authority to indentify the vehicle trace out the same and then proceed in accordance with law. Where the FIR is against known vehicle the Police Authority has to ascertain the allegations and then proceed in accordance with law. In the event investigation is carried out in accordance with law the same cannot be held to be perfunctory without examining the Investigating Officer. In the instant case the Police Authority during the course of investigation ascertained that vehicle no. WB-41/7747 met with an accident. The 5 Investigating Officer was not examined by the Insurance Company nor was the vehicle owner examined. In the case of Ranjeet and Anr. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- ‘4. It is settled in law that once a charge sheet has been filed and the driver has been held negligent, no further evidence is required to prove that the bus was being negligently driven by the bus driver. Even if the eye-witnesses are not examined, that will not be fatal to prove the death of the deceased due to negligence of the bus driver.’ Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence of P.W. 2 by assigning cogent reasons came to the findings of rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle no-WB-41/7747. Thus there is no ground to interfere with the findings of learned Trial Judge regarding rash and negligent driving by driver of vehicle no-WB- 41/7747. With regard to income it appears that P.W. 3 proved the income of the victim. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the income and the issue of future prospect rightly awarded the compensation. However the interest awarded is excessive and the same should be reduced to 6%. Hence this Appeal FMA-3204 of 2016 stands disposed. The Judgment and Award dated 9th December 2015 passed by Learned Additional District 6 Judge 4th Court Asansol Paschim Bardhaman in MAC Case No. 12 of 2013/142 of 2012 stands affirmed so far the principal compensation is awarded. However the interest is reduced to 6%. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit Rs. 33,28,163 alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing claim case till today. Such deposit shall be made within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this Order. In the event compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is deposited no further deposit be made. The respondent claimant is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount upon compliance of necessary formalities. Any amount if earlier withdrawn during pendency be adjusted. The balance amount if any be returned to the appellant National Insurance Company Limited upon withdrawal of compensation along with accrued interest if any. 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.)