Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

FMA 714 of 2023

United India Insurance Company Limited

Versus

Purnima Ghosh & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Paul

For the Respondent No.1 to 3 : Mr. Saikat Sen

Heard & Judgment on : 13^th August, 2025.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are

present in Court.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and

award dated 30^th March, 2023 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, 5^th Court, Purba Bardhaman in M.A.C. Case No. 35 of

2012.

3. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/Insurance

Company submitted to have filed the instant appeal solely on the

ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence which expired on 11^th June, 2009 and the accident occurred on 17^th May, 2012. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/insurance company further submitted that on the date of the accident the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence which appeared to be believable from the deposition of the representative of the RTO Hooghly being O.P. No.1. More-over, the Learned Tribunal had granted interest to the rate of 8% per annum which had been excessive.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1 to

3/claimants submitted that the Learned Tribunal considering each and every aspect as well as deposition of O.P.W.1 being the representative of the RTO, Hooghly had reasonably considered the driver of the offending vehicle to have been in possession of valid driving licence.

Since the occurrence of the accident and other ancillary issues

5.

have not been disputed by the Learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of issues agitated by the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties. The Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order has inter alia observed as follows:

“Learned advocate for the O.P No.2/Insurance Company contended that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle did not have any valid driving license on the date of accident. The learned advocate for the applicants replied to the same by submitted that the applicants have produced driving license of the said driver Khokan Sk. Being No. WB-15-118887 before the Investigating Officer, which reveals that the said driving license was issued in the name of the accused driver and the same was valid till 10.09.2013 it appears from seizure list dt.

23.05.2012 i.e. Exhibit-4.

The O.P. No.2/Insurance Company examined one Mihir Kumar Dutta, posted at Hooghly RTO Office as UDC as O.P.W.1 and in his deposition he stated that the D.L. being No. WB-15/118887 was valid up to 11.06.2009. In cross examination O.P. W.1 stated that it is not possible to say whether RTO Office of Hooghly was computerized or not after 2009. The driving license particulars are not done in computer and the entries are done manually. It is not possible for him to say anything regarding any entry in the computers of the Office of RTO, Hooghly of the driver Khakan Sk. It is not possible for him to say what happened after 2009 as there is no record to that effect either manually or computer and it is not possible for him to say anything about the computer entry of the driving license of the driver Khokan Sk.

Therefore, considering the aforesaid evidence and also considering the seizure list (Exhibit-4), it can safely said that the accused driver had valid driving license at the material point of time.

The learned advocate for the applicants in course of argument contended that even if, it is established that the driver of the alleged offending vehicle had valid driving license as on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company has the liability to pay the compensation.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Si