Form No. J(2)

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

The Hon’ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay FMA 850 of 2012 Ashadebi Paul & Anr.

Versus National Insurance Company Limited & Anr.

For the Appellants : Mr. Krishanu Banik, Mr. Tathagata Banik.

For the Respondents : Mr. Afroz Alam.

Heard & Judgment on : 13^th February, 2025.

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J:

1. Both the Learned Advocates representing the appellants/claimants and the respondent No.1/Insurance Company are present.

2. The instant appeal had been filed against the judgment and award dated 19.07.2010 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Court, Asansol in M.A.C. Case No. 4/125 of

2008/2007.

3. An application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellants/claimants due to the death of the victim in an accident which occurred on 4^th May, 2007 at about 3.30 A.M. within the premises of a factory, namely, Mark Steels Limited in the village - Jagannathdihi in the district of Purulia with the involvement of the offending vehicle being a ‘Dumper’ bearing registration no. OR/02/X/5504 which at an exceeding speed rashly and negligently hit the victim resulting in severe injury sustained by him to which he ultimately succumbed on his way to the Sub-Divisional Hospital where he was declared ‘brought dead’.

4. The learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants submitted that the learned Tribunal had erroneously directed the owner of the vehicle to disburse the amount of compensation since the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license. Moreover, the victim being a bachelor and the claimants being the parents of the victim were entitled to 50% deduction towards personal expenses instead of 1/3^rd deduction. Further the age of the victim at the time of the accident was 24 years and, therefore, a multiplier of 18 should have been applied. The learned Advocate representing the appellants/claimants further submitted that the learned Tribunal should have passed an order directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

5. The learned Advocate representing the respondent No.1/Insurance Company submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear to contest before the Learned Tribunal and in absence of valid driving license being possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle the respondent No.1/Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation awarded and the learned Tribunal had justifiably directed the compensation amount to be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle.

6. Since, the occurrence of the accident, involvement of the offending vehicle, the driving license, Insurance certificate etc. are not disputed by the learned advocate representing the appellant/insurance company, this Court restricts itself only to the extent of considering the multiplier with regard to the age of the victim, the compensation to be granted towards general damages, the percentage towards deduction of personal expenses in case of a bachelor and the scope of the respondent No.1/Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The age of the victim at the relevant date of the accident appeared to be 24 years and, therefore, the multiplier of 18 should have been applied for computing the compensation amount. Moreover, since the victim had expired as a bachelor 50% of the annual income should have been deducted. The appellants/claimants could not prove the income of the victim or his avocation and, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in considering the monthly income of the victim to be Rs.3,000/- and the Court is not inclined to interfere with the same.

7. in view of The Hon’ble Supreme Court held the following in IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Devi1

8. 12. Thereafter, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v