IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury

F.M.A. 1187 of 2025

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

VERSUS

Kumkumi Dhara & Ors.

With

COT 104 OF 2025

Kumkumi Dhara & Ors.

VERSUS

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.

For the appellant/insurance Mr. Anjan Chakraborty, Adv.

company.: Ms. Avantika Chakraborty, Adv.

For respondents/claimants.: Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy, Adv.

Last Heard on: November 13, 2025 Judgment on: December 01, 2025

Biswaroop Chowdhury,J:

The Appellant before this Court is an opposite party in a claim case

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 filed by the Respondent no. 1, 2, 3, and 4 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 30-08-2024

passed by Learned Additional District Judge 5th Court Nadia Krishnanagar in MAC case No-75 of 2023. The Respondent no-1, 2, 3, and 4 have also filed a counter objection to the Appeal.

The case of the Respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and 4/claimants may be summed up thus:

On 13-01-23 at about 10:00 AM while the victim was returning home from Harishpur at that time he was dashed by a bus being no. WB-51A/0022.

He was severly injured and local people took him to Nadia District Hospital and from there he was transferred to NRS Medical College and Hospital. During treatment he died there on 17-01-23.

The family members lodged complaint before police Authority. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle being WB-51-A/0022. There was no fault on the part of the victim in course of the accident.

The said case was contested by the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. by filing written statement. ISSUES were framed. Upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the parties Learned Trial Judge was pleased to dispose the claim case by observing and directing as follows:

‘Hence it is ORDERED that the instant claim application U/S-166 of the MV Act is allowed on contest and the OP. No. 2 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd) being the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing no. WB- 51A/0022 is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation of Rs. 6,90,750/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only). So the OP no.2 (The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd) is hereby directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 6,90,750/- (Rupees Six Lakh Ninety Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty only) to the petitioners Viz. 1. Kumkumi Dhara, 2 Kartick Dhara 3, Madhabi Dhara and 4. Sarathi-Dhara by issuing four separate account Payee cheques to the tune of Rs. 1,80,750/- in favour of petitioner No.1 and to the tune of Rs. 1,70,000/- each in favour of Petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4 respectively after deducting the amount of compensation if any already paid U/S 140 of the M.V. Act within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim application till the date of realization of the compensation amount.’

The Appellant being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Court has come up with the instant appeal. The Respondent No. 1, 2, 3, and 4have also filed a cross objection being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award.

The ground on which the Judgment of the Learned Trial Court is assailed by the Appellant is that 15% future prospect ought not to have been granted as the victim was a day labour of 58 years. Secondly the evidence adduced does not support the case of the claimants, and thirdly the Award passed was excessive.

The cross objection is filed on the ground that the income of the victim was not properly considered while passing the award.

Thus both Appeal and the cross objection are taken up together for their interconnectiveness.

Heard Learned Advocate for the Appellant and Learned Advocate for the Respondent no. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Perused the evidence adduced.

Learned Advocate for the Appellant Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.

submits that the Learned Trial C