Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

FMA 457 of 2024

National Insurance Company Limited

Versus

Sanjukta Dandapat Singha @ Sanjukta Singha & Ors.

For the Appellant/

Insurance Company : Mr. Rajesh Singh

For the Respondents/

Claimants : Mrs. Rita Bhattacharya

Heard & Judgment on : 20^th August, 2025.

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 07.12.2023 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 7^th Court, Paschim

Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 372 of 2019.

3. The learned advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted to have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the Learned Tribunal despite considering the driving licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle to have been fake had not granted the right to recover in favour of the appellant/Insurance Company after payment of the same to the claimants from the owner of the offending vehicle. Moreover, in absence of corroborative oral as well as documentary evidence, the Learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.8,000/- pursuing his livelihood as a vegetable seller as well as Micro Insurance Agent.

4. The learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted that the Learned Tribunal after considering each and every aspect had granted the compensation which should not be interfered with.

5. Since the occurrence of the accident, insurance policy, the route permit etc. and other ancillary issues are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company, this Court restrict itself only to the extent of modifying the above-

mentioned issues.

6. Considered the rival contentions of the Learned Advocates representing the respective parties.

7. The evidence of O.P.W.1 before the Learned Tribunal exhibiting the report of the licensing authority marked as Exhibit-‘B’ stated that the extract copy of the driving licence regarding Aakash Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle did not tally with the licence being No.WB0120100690521 as delineated in their register. The driving licence was never issued in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle. It was specifically mentioned by OPW.1 that “This is the report submitted by Sri Biswajit Majumdar, the Licensing Authority, on 13.09.2023 about the query made in the summons. The said report is marked as Exhibit-‘B’.

I have brought extract copy of the driving licence regarding Akash Singh, son of Anil Singh. No such driving licence exists in the name of the said person. The licence number WB0120100690521 is not tallying with our register. This is the extract details in respect of the said driving licence number being computer generated. It is signed by our RTO, Licence, Mr. Biswajit Majumdar, on 13.09.2023. The extract details concerning the said driving licence number is marked as Exhibit-‘C’.

No such driving licence in the name of Akash Singh, son of Anil Singh was issued from our office or is in existence.”

8. The Learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and order had formulated an additional issue as follows:-

‘Whether the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. WB 34BB/8009 had valid driving licence at the time of the accident or whether the said licence is a fake one?”

9. The Learned Tribunal in disposing of the aforesaid additional issue no.1, observed as follows:-

“The additional issue no. 1 dated 02.04.2022 is now taken up for determination earlier than the rest issues for the sake of convenience and brevity. The question is related to the issue as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle bearing no. WB34BB/8009 had valid driving licence at the time of the accident or whether the said licence is a fake one.

This issue has arisen due to the asser