IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Sen

FMA 43 of 2025

Sourjyo Deep Basu alias Sourjyodeep Basu

Vs.

Cholamandalam M/s. General Insurance

Company Limited & Anr.

For the appellant : Mr. Subir Banerjee

Mr. Abhijit Raha

For the respondent/ : Ms. Supriya Singh

Insurance Company

Heard on : 19.08.2025 Judgement on : 19.08.2025

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.:

1. The informal paper book as filed today on behalf of the

claimant/appellant in Court is taken on record.

2. In this appeal, the judgment dated, 04.07.2023 as passed by the

learned Judge, MAC Tribunal, FTC 1^st Class, Jalpaiguri in MAC Case

No. 180 of 2018 is assailed.

3. By the impugned judgment, the said Tribunal in an application under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

„the said Act of 1988‟ for short) passed an award to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the claimant directing the respondent insurance company herein to pay the said assessed amount within a month from the date of passing of this judgment failing which the said awarded amount would carry interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of filing of the said application for compensation till actual payment.

4. The claimant who is the son of the deceased felt aggrieved with the quantum of the award as made by the said Tribunal and thus preferred the instant appeal.

5. In course of his argument, Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate appearing in Virtual Mode duly assisted by Mr. Raha, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions.

a) that the Tribunal for no reason whatsoever has failed to consider the evidence as adduced by the P.W.s to the effect that the deceased was a private tutor and she was thus self- employed and, therefore, learned Tribunal is not justified to treat the deceased as a home-maker and the Tribunal is equally not justified to assess the monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- per month which according to Mr. Banerjee is exceptionally low.

b) placing his reliance upon the judgment dated 18.08.2025 as passed by this Court in FMA 30 of 2024 (Baldeo Oraon and Anr. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Anr.) Mr. Banerjee submits that in the case of Baldeo Oraon and Anr. (supra) this Court assessed the income of a home-maker to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- per month on the basis of the proposition of law as decided in the case of Syed Sadiq & Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. reported in (2014) 2 SCC 735, an unreported decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 01.12.2022 as passed in Civil Appeal No. 8960 of 2017 in the case of Muhammed @ Kunjumuhammed Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and in the reported decision of Angad Tiwari & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co.

Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2025 ACJ 312 c) that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the future prospect to the extent of 25 per cent as has been held in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.

reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 d) that the learned Tribunal while passing the judgment impugned has also not granted any compensation towards loss of consortium under the heading “general damages” overlooking the fact that the claimant is the sole child of the deceased.

6. It is thus submitted that while allowing the instant appeal and while enhancing the amount of compensation, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of consortium may be added under the heading “general damages”.

7. It is further submitted that considering the judgment of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra), learned Tribunal ought to have added 20 per cent over the assessment of “general damages” considering the fact that the judgment of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) was pronounced in the year 2017 whereas the impugned judgment was pronounced in the year 2023 and, therefore, from the date of passing of the judgment of Pranay Sethi & Ors. (supra) six years have passed and thus, the Tribunal ough