IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay F.M.A.T 525 of 2019 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

-Vs-

Esamatara Bibi & Ors.

With COT 74 of 2022 Esamatara Bibi & Ors.

-Vs-

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

For the Appellants/

Insurance Co. in FMAT. 525 of 2019 : Mr. Rajesh Singh For the Respondents/

Claimants in FMAT 525 of 2019 :Mr Jayanta Kumar Mandal For the Appellants/

Claimants in COT 74 of 2022 : Mr Jayanta Kumar Mandal For the Respondent No.1/

Insurance Company :Mr. Rajesh Singh Heard on & Judgment on : 4th April, 2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:-

1. Four legal heirs of deceased Ajmat Ali Sekhfiled filed an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, judge cum Additional District Judge, Durgapur, Burdwan being MAC Case No.30 of 2017/152 of 2014, claiming an award of Rs.29,00,000/- as well as an interest of 50% added towards future prospects with an interest payable at 10% interest from the date of filling to till its realization due to a road traffic accident on 07/08/2014 at about 01:45 PM.

2. The victim being a goods owner was returning to Kalna by a TATA ACE pickup truck bearing registration no. WB-39A/0445 which was insured by United India Insurance Co. Ltd when he was suddenly crashed into a pickup van from behind that took a sharp right turn bearing registration no. WB-41C-0727 and was insured by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. The victim expired on the spot and his post mortem was held at Burdwan Medical College and Hospital.

3. Based on a complaint, Galsi P.S. Case No. 286/2014 dated 07/08/2014 was instituted. United India Insurance Co. Ltd and Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the aforesaid MAC case.

4. The Learned Tribunal as aforesaid disposed of the issues framed considering the oral as well as documentary evidences and awarded a sum of Rs. 29,00,000/- as compensation and the claimants were entitled to an interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the case being 18/09/2014 till the date of realization from Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the Appellant submitted as follows:-

a. Awarding total compensation against the insurer of the pickup van bearing registration number WB-41C/0727 involved in the accident, was erroneous as the accident which took place between the aforesaid pick up van and another 'TATA ACE’ bearing registration no. WB-39A/0445 insured with 'United India Insurance Company Limited' was caused due to the fact the TATA ACE hit the pickup van from behind which was corroborated by the claim petition, FIR and charge sheet, thus there was no negligent and rash driving on the part of the pickup van.

b. The claimants did not even allege that the pickup van turned to its right ‘without any signal’ or that the vehicle was speeding and failed to prove its negligence with cogent evidence. In such a situation, it was apparent that the TATA ACE was driving at a high speed without maintaining reasonable distance and it crashed into the pickup van from behind.

c. The charge sheet (Exbt. 3) prepared by the police authorities, in relation to the accident was filed against the drivers of both the vehicles, holding them equally responsible for the accident.

d. PW 2, Hafijil Sekh, who claimed to be an eye-witness, was not a charge sheeted eye-witness and he falsely deposed that the pick-up van crashed into the TATA Ace which was in contradiction to all the police papers. Even the claim petition itself stated that the TATA ACE crashed into the Pick Up van from behind.

e. There were two vehicles involved in the accident and the police authorities after proper investigation filed their charge sheet against drivers of both the vehicles ascribing equally responsible for the accident.

f. The compensation amount directed to be paid by the owner/insurer of the pickup van should have been fixed at 50% only or le