The court modified compensation based on valid evidence and judicial precedents, affirming the necessity of substantiating vehicle involvement in accident claims.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellant/Insurance Company and the respondents/claimants are present in Court.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 21.06.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Suri, Birbhum in M.A.C. Case No. 25 of 2023.

3. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted to have filed the instant appeal exclusively on the ground that the offending vehicle had been falsely fabricated in the instant complaint case for the purpose of extracting compensation from the appellant/Insurance Company. The accident occurred on 21.09.2022 at 3:00 A.M. in the dead of night and the eye-witness had been tutored to adduce false evidence before the Learned Tribunal. Eye-witness being P.W. 2 submitted to have known the claimants’ family as well as the victim. However, he did not inform the number of the offending vehicle to the victim’s family earlier on the date of the accident. The mother of the deceased victim lodged a complaint at the Police Station on the date of the accident which did not mention the number of the offending vehicle. Under such circumstances, it can be concluded that the offending vehicle being an ambassador car was falsely implicated with an ulterior motive. Moreover, the Learned Tribunal had assessed the compensation on the basis of the general damages granted above Rs.36,000/- since the victim had been a bachelor.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle after 2 to 3 days of the occurrence of the accident had himself appeared before the concerned Police Station and revealed the number of the offending vehicle giving no scope of false implication of the same.

5. Since the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, the driving license, Insurance certificate etc.

are not disputed by the Learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of rectifying the above-mentioned issues.

6. Considered the rival contentions of the respective parties.

7. Evidently, the document marked as exhibit-6 being the complaint filed by the mother of the victim did not state the number of the offending vehicle. However, the charge-sheet marked as exhibit- 7 stated the number of the offending vehicle which being a white coloured ambassador was seized, however, it did not mention as to the seizure of the same on the basis of the information received by the owner of the offending vehicle. Nonetheless, the charge-sheet submitted after completion of an investigation, prima facie, cannot be disputed. However, the victim unfortunately died as a bachelor and the Learned Tribunal considered the general damages to the extent of Rs.1,10,000/-

instead of Rs.30,000/-.

8. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., [(2009) 6 SC 121], the impugned award of Rs. 8,66,000/- is modified as follows:

Annual Income Rs. 60,000/-

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

9. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submits to have deposited a sum of Rs.9,59,017/- as per challan filed by the Learned Advocate representing the Appellant/Insurance Company.

10. The Respondents/claimants are entitled to receive the amount of Rs.