Form No. J(2)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay IA No.:CAN/2/2017(Old No.:CAN/5310/2017)

in FMA 795 of 2013 Anita Saha Versus The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

For the Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Saidur Rahaman For the Respondents/Claimants : Mr. Parimal Kumar Pahari, Mr. Arabinda Kundu Heard & Judgment on : 2^nd September, 2025.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. The Learned Advocates representing the respective parties are present in Court today.

2. The instant appeal had been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.02.2012 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 2^nd Court, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur in M.A.C. Case No. 193 of 2003.

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act had been filed by the claimant on account of the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 27.01.2001 at about 7:00 P.M. at Tetultala on NH-34 which is 8 K.M. north-west from the jurisdiction of Raiganj Police Station with the involvement of the offending vehicles being a truck and a trekker bearing registration no. Wb-73/4137 and WB-59/3183 respectively. The victim being a passenger of the trekker was hit by the truck which approached at an exceeding speed rashly and negligently on the wrong side of the road as a result of which several passengers of the trekker suffered severe injuries and the victim instantaneously died on the spot.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal considered the multiplier to be ‘15’ instead of ‘18’ considering the age of the victim to be 23 years on the date of the accident. It was further submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.3,000/- as claimed to have been earned by him through imparting private tuitions and had considered the monthly income to be Rs.2,000/-. It was further submitted that the compensation under the head of future prospect was not granted. The personal expenditure should not have been deducted to the extent of 1/3^rd but to 50% since the victim had expired as a bachelor.

5. The Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respondents/Insurance Companies unanimously submitted that the Tribunal was justified in assessing the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.2,000/- since the claimant failed to adduce evidence to the extent of the same to have been Rs.3,000/-.

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 respondents/Insurance Company, this Court restrict itself only to the extent of determine the above-mentioned issues.

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

8. The Tribunal in assessing the multiplier with regard to the age of the victim should have considered the same to be ‘18’ instead of ‘15’ since the victim was 23 years of age on the date of the accident resulting in his death. The victim evidently died as a bachelor and the expenditure towards personal expenses should have been deducted to the extent of 50% instead of 1/3^rd. The Tribunal, however, in absence of corroborative evidence assessed the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.2,000/- which is not interfered with.

9. Considering the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National insurance company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Shetty & Anr1 and Sarala Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.2 the impugned award of Rs. 2,44,500/- is modified as follows:

10. The Learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation to the claimant of Rs. 2,44,500/-. The appellant/claimant are entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,38,400/- along with 6% interest per annum to be paid from the date of filing of the application till the date of its actual realization. The Learned Advocate for the appellant/clai