Form No. J(2)

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

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 211 of 2025 Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Versus Renuka Sahu & Ors.

With COT/42/2025 Renuka Sahu & Anr.

-Vs.-

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Ors.

For the Appellant/Insurance Company : Mr. Soumalya Ganguli For the Respondents/Claimants : Mr. Amit Ranjan Roy Heard & Judgment on : 3^rd 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 30.01.2021 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court – II, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 08 of 2017.

3. The Learned advocate representing the appellant/Insurance Company submitted to have filed the instant appeal on the ground that the Learned Tribunal disregarded the fact that the Insurance policy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company with regard to the vehicle number being WB-59/1819 being a truck had the policy coverage till the midnight of 7^th March, 2012 and the effectivity of the said Insurance policy expired prior to the date of accident being 6^th May, 2012. Since the offending vehicle was not covered under the Insurance policy on the date of the accident the present appellant/Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal.

4. The Learned Advocate representing the respondents/claimants submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company did not raise the plea of the expiry of the Insurance policy prior to the date of the accident before the Learned Tribunal. Moreover, the seizure list as well as the charge-sheet mentioned the involvement of the offending vehicle as aforesaid to have been equally responsible with that of the other offending vehicle insured under the respondent no. 5 being the National Insurance Company and the Learned Tribunal had rightly apportioned the compensation amount equally between both the Insurance Companies. The Learned Advocate representing the respondent no. 5, National Insurance Company Limited submitted to have disbursed the amount of compensation to the extent of 50% as directed by the Learned Tribunal in the impugned Judgment and order and accordingly absolved from making further comments.

5. Since the occurrence of the accident, the driving licence, 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 determine the above-mentioned issues.

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

7. The appellant/Insurance Company was given the opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witness no. 2 being the eye- witness in the capacity of O.P.W. No. 4. However, during the course of such cross-examination, the appellant/Insurance Company did not pose any question with regard to its liability to disburse the compensation amount apart from questioning its involvement in the occurrence of the accident to be questionable. Moreover, the appellant/Insurance Company did not adduce further evidence in the form of defence witness to authenticate its claim that the Insurance policy after being expired on 7th March, 2012 had not been renewed and the appellant/Insurance Company was under no circumstances liable to pay the compensation awarded. The appellant/Insurance Company further had the opportunity to cross-examine P.W.1 wherein the appellant/Insurance Company refrained to raise any question with regard to the expiry of the Insurance policy. However, the charge-sheet marked as Exhibit – 2 as well as the seizure list marked as Exhibit – 3 denoted the involvement of the offending vehicle being a truck bearing registration no.- WB-59/1819 being injured under the present