SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 4904

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
PRIYANKA SAHA (NANDI) – Appellant
Versus
NARAYAN RAKSHIT AND ANR – Respondent
FMA 68 / 2024



##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Circuit Bench At Jalpaiguri

The Hon’ble JusticPer eBsiesnwt:a roop Chowdhury

FMA 68 of 2024

Priyanka Saha

VERSUS

Narayan Rakshit & Anr.

For the appellant: Mr. Satyaki Basu, Adv.

Mr. Rumali Basu, Adv.

For the

respondent no.2

/Insurance

Company:

Mr. Rishin Chakraborty, Adv.

Last Heard on: December 18, 2025

Judgment on: December 22, 2025

Biswaroop Chowdhury, J:

The appellant before this Court was a claimant in a case under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, and is aggrieved by the Judgment and

Award dated 31-08-2019 passed by Learned Additional District Judge

Malbazar Jalpaiguri in MAC case No-323 of 2017.

The case of the appellant before the Learned Trial Court may be summed

up thus:

On 24-07-2016 at about 1.00 Hrs. when the said Soumendra Nath Saha

was returning to the Parental house of the appellant from Siliguri towards

Prakash Nagar on his motor cycle bearing Registration number WB-74-AJ-

##PAGE2##

2

1741 at that time near Payal More, P.S. Bhaktinagar District Jalpaiguri a pick

up van bearing Regd. No. WB-72-C-0057 driven rash and negligently with high

speed dashed the said Soumendra Nath Saha returning to the parental house

of the appellant as a result Soumendra Nath Saha received severe injuries on

his person and was shifted to Anandaloke Hospital where the attending doctor

declared him dead.

Being unable to obtain any compensation in respect of the death of

Soumendra Nath Saha the petitioners being the wife has been compelled to file

this case praying for compensation of Rs. 42,00,000/- along with interest.

The Respondent no-2 Oriental Insurance Company filed written

statement and contested the case. ISSUES were framed and evidence was

adduced by the claimant/appellant.

Upon perusing the evidence adduced and upon hearing the parties

Learned Trial Court was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and

directing as follows

‘Hence it is ORDERED that the application U/S. 166 of the MV Act be

and the same is allowed ex-parte against the owner of the offending vehicle and

on contest against the O.P. no. 2/Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. without cost. The

claimant do get an award of Rs. 21,64,468/- (Rupees Twenty One Lakhs Sixty

four thousand four hundred and sixty eight only) along with simple interest @

9% p.a. from the date of institution of this case ie. 25.08.2017.

Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,64,468/-

(Rupees Twenty One lakh Sixty Four thousand four hundred and sixty eight

only) along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of this

case ie. 25-08-2017 by issuing one Account payee cheque in the name of

Priyanka Saha (Nandi) within one month from the date of this Judgment in

##PAGE3##

3

default it shall carry simple interest @ 9% p.a. from date till its full realization.’

The claimant/Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award

dated 31-08-2019 has come up with the instant appeal. The ground on which

the Judgment is assailed is that the Learned Trial Judge failed to assess the

proper annual income of the victim/deceased and fixing fictitious reasonable

annual income. Secondly the Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that as

per last Income Tax Return of the deceased his gross annual income was Rs.

3,41,560/- (Rupees three Lakh Forty One Thousand Five Hundred Sixty). It is

also submitted that the correct multiplier is also not applied.

Heard learned Advocate for the appellant, and learned Advocate for the

respondent no-1. Perused the materials on record.

Learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant submits that the Learned

Trial Judge erred in not considering the income tax return document filed by

the claimant which was marked exhibit with objection. Learned Advocate for he

respondent no. 1 Insurance Company submits that the income tax return filed

by the claimant/appellant was Xerox copy thus the Learned Trial Judge rightly

refused to rely on the said documents.

Learned Advocate relies upon the following Judicial decisions:

Bony Dubey VS M/S. Shyam Bibi work’s and Another

Repo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top