The court clarified the conditions under which insurance liability exists in motor vehicle accident claims and adjusted compensation based on assessed income.

SMT AKLEMA BIBI & ORS Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari … for the appellant/Insurance Company Mr. Sujit Saha … for the respondents/claimants Heard on Judgment on : 28.07.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay J.

1. The Learned Advocates representing the appellant/insurance company as well as respondents/claimants are present.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against judgment and order dated 17th November, 2016 passed by the learned Judge cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C. Raiganj in M.A.C. Case No. 105 of 2013 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, had been filed by the claimants on account of death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 04.07.2013 at about 10:00 hours on NH-34 Road at Shyamapally Itahar within the jurisdiction of Itahar Police Station with the involvement of the offending vehicle being Truck bearing No.WB-03/T.C.-0074 which proceeding at an excessive speed rashly and negligently hit the victim who had a pedestrian and evidently run over him who was initially referred to Raiganj Hospital and thereafter subsequently expired at SSKM Hospital.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation amount since there had been a violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy. Moreover, the claimants failed to prove the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.9,000/- per month working as a mason.

5. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted to have filed a cross objection being COT 117 of 2018 wherein it had been stated that the learned tribunal did not grant any compensation towards the component of future prospect.

6. Considered the submissions of the learned Advocates representing both the parties.

7. Since, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, etc. are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company, 8. The learned advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company for the first time raised the issue of violation of the Insurance Policy which was not agitated before the learned tribunal and this court is not inclined to entertain the same. Moreover, as far as the income of Mason is concerned that could not have been possibly proved through any documentary evidence. However, considering the fiscal index prevalent in the year 2013 the monthly income of the deceased victim can be considered to Rs.6,000/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- which appears to be improbable.

9. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court Pranay in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &

Anr.2 The impugned award of Rs. 6,53,796/- is modified as follows:

1 2017(4)TAC 673(S.C)

2 (2009) 6 SC 121

10. The learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs. 8,91,672/=(Rs. 25,000 + 8,66,672) through two separate cheques as per challan filed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company

11. The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs. 6,18,600/- at the rate of 6% per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of act