Form No. J(2)

c.m. . A.R. (CT)

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction (Appellate Side)

Present: The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay F.M.A. No.63 of 2025 Jyotsna Bera & Ors.

Vs.

Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

For the Appellants : Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy For the Respondent : Mr. Rajesh Singh Heard & Judgment On : 24.10.2025 Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.:

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

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 25th September, 2024 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 78 of 2020 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. An application under Section 166 of the motor vehicles Act had been filed by the claimants owing to the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 29th December, 2019 at about 6.30. P.M. at Madhakhali near Matara Feed Center within the jurisdiction of Mouja Madhakhali, J.L. No. 221 within the jurisdiction of Bhupatinagar Police station with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a motor cycle bearing registration No. WB-30AE/3540 approaching at an excessive speed rashly and negligently which collided with the victim who subsequently expired on 01.01.2020 at N.R.S. Medical Collage and Hospital as a consequence of receiving injuries out of the said accident.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted to have filed the instant appeal since the Learned Tribunal had deducted 1/4th instead of 1/3 on account of personal expenses without considering the number of the claimants to be 4. The Learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants further submitted that the Learned Tribunal did consider the claimants No. 1 to 4 to be entitled for receiving the compensation, however, at the time of computing the compensation deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses instead of 1/4th and relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender1 and Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.2 . It was further submitted that the married daughters in view of the aforesaid decisions were entitled to compensation irrespective of the factor of their dependency

1 AIR 2020 Supreme Court 434

2 2025 SAR online (SC) 171

upon the deceased victim being legal representative entitled to the compensation amount as mentioned therein.

5. Learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/ Insurance Company refuted the contentions of the Learned Advocate representing the appellants and relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manjuri Bera Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.3 And Deep Shikha & Anr. Vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.4 stating the status of the married daughters in absence of their exclusive dependency upon the deceased victim did not entitle them to any kind of compensation and the Learned Tribunal should have considered the number of claimants to be 2 instead of 4 in the instant case.

6. The observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Birender and Seema Rani & Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors inter alia stating as follows:

11. According to Section 2(11) CPC, “legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued. Almost in similar terms is the definition of legal representative under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 i.e. under Section

2(1)(g).

12. As observed by this Court in Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique [Custodian of Branches of Banco National Ultramarino v. Nalini Bai Naique, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 275] the definition contained