FMA/463/2025 of NATIONAL INS CO LTD Vs ANJU DANDAPAT AND ORS on 8 July 2026

Item No.

Ct rup

08.07. IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE FMA 463 of 2025 National Insurance Company Limited Vs Anju Dandapat & Ors. Mr. Deb Narayan Roy. … for the appellant/insurance company. Mr. Ashique Mondal, Mr. Shahmeraz Alam. … for the respondents.

Learned advocates for the parties are present. Heard learned advocates. The appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 77 of 2022. The case of the claimants before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus: That on 12.12.2021 at about 03.00 PM when the victim, namely, Tarachand Dandapat was standing by the extreme left side of Khadika- Gopiballavpur pitch road near Kashia village with two of his companions, at that time one Maruti Swift being registration No. WB-50E/1277 came at high speed from Khadika side and dashed the victim. As a result, he sustained severe injuries on his person. He was taken to Khadikamathani Super Specialty Hospital and for better treatment he was shifted to Midnapur Medical College and Hospital. From Midnapur Medical College and Hospital he was further taken to SCB/ VSS/ MKCG medical College at Cuttack where he died on 14.12.2021. The victim was a driver by profession. Pursuant to the institution of this case, notice was issued upon the opposite parties. The opposite party/vehicle owner did not appear and contest the case. However, the opposite party National Insurance Company Limited contested the case by filing written statement. Issues were framed and evidence was adduced. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence and upon hearing the learned advocates for the parties, was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows: “Hence, it is ordered that the MAC case no. 77 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on contest without cost against the O.P No. 2/ National Insurance Company Limited and in ex-parte against the owner of the vehicle without costs. O.P No.2, National Insurance Company

Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing no. WB-50E/1277 is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 29,40,400/- (Twenty Nine Lakh Forty Thousand and Four Hundred only), to the claimant no. 1, 2, 3, 4 by account payee cheques within three months hereof with the interest as per banking rate applicable to fixed deposit from the date of filing of the application till realization of the amount. The amount of compensation granted in favour of the minor petitioners shall be invested in any nationalized bank or Post Office till attaining of majority of minor petitioners. After showing the proof of investment of compensation amount of the minor petitioners in nationalized bank or Post Office, the cheque in the name of petitioner no. 1 shall be handed over to her. Out of the entire amount of compensation, separate cheque of Rs. 50,000/-shall be issued in favour of petitioner no. 1 and 4 separately, and two other separate cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/- each shall be issued in the name of petitioner no. 2 and 3 separately. The copy of the judgment shall be handed over to the parties after deposit of deficit Court fee by 07.10.2024.” The appellant/National Insurance Co. Ltd.

being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Learned Trial Judge has come up with the instant appeal. Heard

learned

advocates

for

the appellant/insurance

company

and

learned advocates for the respondents/claimants. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record. Learned advocates for the appellant/insurance company submits that the Learned Trial Judge erred in law by accepting monthly income of the victim as Rs.12,000/- per month without the employer being examined. Learned advocate further submits that Learned Trial Judge erred in awarding parental consortium to both the children as well as spousal consortium to the wife twice. Learned advocate submits that the compensation awarded should be reduced. Learned

advocate

for

the respondents/claimants submits that the victim was a driver by occupation and the driving licence was exhibited without objection and the Learned Trial Judge did not commit any error by considering the monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and argument advanced by the learned advocates this Court is of the view that as the occupation of the victim is established and nothing has come out in the cross-examination that the victim was not driver by occupation, it is not unusual for a driver to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. Moreover, the claimants have specifically named the employer under whom the victim is to work. This statement of the claimant should not be disbelieved. Thus, there is no error committed by the Learned Trial Judge in considering the monthly income of the victim as Rs.12,000/- per month. However, with regard to the parental consortium awarded by the Learned Trial Judge, this Court is of the view that as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Shetty reported in AIR 2017 SC 3157 have discussed only with regard to the spousal consortium and have held against parental consortium/parental care, this Court is of the view that considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Shetty (supra) parental consortium may not be granted. Further it appears that the Learned Trial Judge although computed the spousal consortium as Rs.40,000/- in computing the general damages but thereafter Learned Trial Judge awarded further spousal consortium of Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the grant of spousal consortium of Rs.50,000/- and parental consortium of Rs.2,00,000/- cannot be sustained and the total compensation should accordingly be reduced. The total compensation awarded by the Learned Trail Judge was Rs. 29,40,400/- and by reduction of Rs.2,50,000/- the total compensation comes to Rs.26,90,400/- by arithmetic calculation. However, this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- is just and reasonable. Hence, this appeal being FMA 463 of 2025 stands disposed of. The judgment and award dated 30.09.2024 passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, 4th Court, Paschim Medinipur in M.A.C. Case No. 77 of 2022 stands modified to the extent that the claimants/respondents are entitled to Rs.27,00,000/- from the National Insurance Company Limited. The appellant/National Insurance Company Limited shall deposit Rs.27,00,000/- along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim case (i.e. 01.02.2022) till today. Such deposit shall be made within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event, compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Judge is already deposited, no further deposit is required to be made. The claimants/respondents will be entitled to withdraw the compensation upon compliance of necessary formalities in the said proportion as directed by the Learned Trial Court. The balance amount, if any, with accrued interest shall be returned to the appellant/National Insurance company Limited.

Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)