Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay

FMA 936 of 2023

Ratna Ghosh (Mahato) & Ors.

Versus

M/s. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

For the Appellants/claimants : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Mandal,

Ms. Sima Ghosh,

Mr. Sayantan Rakshit. For the Respondents/

Insurance Company : Mr. Rajesh Singh. Heard & Judgment on : 27^th August, 2025.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the

appellants/claimants and the respondents/Insurance Company

are present in Court.

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

award dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 4^th Court, Suri, Birbhum in M.A.C. Case

No. 165 of 2016.

3. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants

submitted to have filed the instant appeal exclusively on the ground that the Learned Tribunal considering the victim who had

died in the accident which occurred on 18.07.2016 at about 4.45 P.M. near Joypur Petrol Pump on Panagarh-Moregram Highway within the jurisdiction of Mohammad Bazar Police Station, District – Birbhum instrumental in causing the accident having negligently collided with the offending vehicle being a truck bearing registration no. WB-57C/1854. Considering the theory of contributory negligence the Learned Tribunal had assessed a reduction of 30% of the compensation owing to contributory negligence.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/Insurance Company submitted observation of the Learned Tribunal to have assessed the victim to have negligently contributed to the occurrence of the accident was justified through the explanation in the impugned Judgment and order and this Court should not interfere with the same.

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

6. Since the occurrence of the accident, insurance policy, the driving licence, route permit etc and other ancillary issues are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the respondent No.1/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of modifying the above-mentioned issues.

7. The Learned Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and order, inter alia, observed as follows:-

“It may not be out of place to point out that PW-2 is examined by the claimants being eye-witness. He has come before Court being requested by the widow of the victim who was his colleague. This P.W.-02 in course of cross-examination admitted that the accident took place in front of Joypur petrol pump which was on the right side of their way. If that be so, the accident took place on the right side of their way because their case is that the accident took place in front of the Joypur petrol pump. It is not their case that the accident took place on either side of the road leading in front of the petrol pump. This witness has also claimed that it was a case of head on collision and the offending vehicle stopped there.

Considering all these it seems to me that claimants could be able to substantiate that the accident took place due to some extent rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck bearing No. WB/57C/1854. Buy in my humble view he was not the sole responsible for the accident. Taking all these together it seems to me that though the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending truck, motorcyclist had also contribution to the accident and that contribution to the reason behind the accident, in my humble view should be not less than 30%”.

8. The evidence of the eye-witness being P.W. 2 is replicated as follows:-

“That on 18.07.2016 the victim was returning home from his school (after completion of school hours duty) through Panagarh- Moregram Highway (NH-60) riding on his motorcycle WB- 54E/7723 and by this manner at about 04.45 P.M.(Day) when he came near Joypur petrol pump on that road at that time the offen