The Future Generali India Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Sushama Mahata and Ors.

The Appellant before this Court was an opposite party in a case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 1988 and is aggrieved by the Judgment and Award dated 24^th December 2024 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 6^th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 215 of 2020.

¶17

The case of the claimant/Respondent before the Learned Trial Court may be summed up thus:-

¶18

2

¶19

On 26-12-2019 at about 6.00 P.M. when the deceased person namely

¶20

Joydev Mahata was returning from Manikpara SIS, Office towards his own house Dalkati by Motor Cycle when he reached near extremely left side at the middle portion of Beltala to Gajasimul Pitch Road on N.H.6 Road under P.S. Jhargram District Jhargram at that time one offending Truck bearing Registration No. WB-33B/8626 coming from Balivasha towards Lodhasuli with a very high speed rash and negligent manner dashed behind the victim with the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased Joydev Mahata fell down on the road and sustained grievous injury on his head and body. After accident with the help of some local people he was admitted to Jhargram District Hospital on that day. Doctor of the Jhargram District Hospital saw the patient and declared him dead. After death Police Officer of the Jhargram Police Station held the U/D Case being U/D Case No-405/19 dated 27-12-2019.

¶21

The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck bearing Registration No. WB-33B/8626 and Jhargram Police Station started a Criminal Case against the driver of the above mentioned offending truck and after proper investigation of Jhargram P.S. Case No. 03/2020 dt. 05.01.2020. charge sheet U/S. 279/304A IPC was submitted.

¶22

Pursuant to filing of the case notice was issued upon the opposite parties.

¶23

Opposite party vehicle owner did not contest the case. However opposite party Future General. Insurance Co. Ltd, contested the case by filing written

¶24

3

¶25

statement as well as by adducing evidence. ISSUES were framed and evidence was adduced Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence adduced and upon hearing the Learned Advocates for the parties was pleased to dispose of the claim case by observing and directing as follows:-

¶26

‘Hence it is ORDERED that the motor accident claim case no. 215 of 2020 (CIS No. 215 of 2020) U/S 166 MV. Act is allowed on contest against the insurer Future General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. and ex-parte against the registered owner Prakash Sahu but without cost.

¶27

Thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 55,06,268/- (Rupees Fifty Five Lakhs Six Thousand Two Hundred Sixty Eight) only as compensation.

¶28

The Future General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. is directed to pay award amount within 60 days from receipt of this judgment along with interest at the rate of 5% (five percent) per annum from date of filing of the claim case before this Court (13.03.2020) till realization of the award amount by depositing 5 (five) account payee cheques in the name of claimants.’

¶29

The appellant Future General Insurance Co. Ltd. being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Learned Trial Court has come up with the instant appeal.

¶30

Heard Learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company and Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants. Perused the evidence adduced and materials on record.

¶31

4

¶32

Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that the FIR in the instant case was lodged after 9 days, and the case is doubtful. Learned Advocate further submits that the driver of the offending truck did not have any valid driving license when the accident took place. Learned Advocate also submits that one license was not exhibited, and from the license filed it will appear that the driver was not permitted to ply heavy vehicles with the said license and accident took place when the license was not valid. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that widow of the victim was receiving pension thus the compensation awarded is excessive.

¶33

Learned Advocate for the respondents/claimants disputes the submission of the Learned Advocate for the appellant.

¶34

Learned Advocate draws attention to the certificate of Registration of vehicle No. WB33B8626 involved in the accident being a Goods Carrier and submits that the said vehicle is not heavy vehicle as per definition of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Learned Advocate also relies upon the driving license marked Y for identification and submits that the said license was valid from 22/06/2017 to 21/06/2020 and the accident took place during the validity period. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate that even if the driver of the offending vehicle was driving without valid driving license the Court is empowered to direct the appellant Insurance Company to pay and recover from the vehicle owner.

¶35

5

¶36

With regard to the first submission of the Learned Advocate for the appellant Insurance Company that delay in lodging the FIR was 9 days it is held in different judicial pronouncements that mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal. In the Indian Families members rush to hospital after accident and not to Police Station. Moreover when there is bereavement in the family it is not unusual that there will be delay in lodging F.I.R. With regard to the second submission of Learned Advocate for the appellant that the driver was not authorized to drive heavy goods vehicle it is necessary to consider the definition of Heavy Goods Vehicle as provided under Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

¶37

As per Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 heavy goods vehicle means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which exceeds 12,000 Kilograms.

¶38

In the instant case the unladen weight of the said vehicle is 3116 Kg thus it cannot be said to be a heavy vehicle.

¶39

With regard to the second submission of Learned Advocate for the appellant that the driving license was valid from 15-06-2020 to 15-06-2025 as will appear from Exhibit B, and the accident took place on 26/12/2019 it appears from the ‘Extract of Driving License’ that the Driving license being Number WB-3319870056622 although shows validity from 15-06-2020-15-062025 but it also shows that it was issued an 23^rd April 1987. The Driving license Transaction history shows that it was renewed on 16-06-2020, and 03-

¶40

6

¶41

07-2017. As per the extract the said license was valid throughout the period except 26-07-2014 to 21-06-2017. Thus the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license on 26/12/2019 when the accident took place. Learned Trial Judge upon considering the evidence of OPW-1 Motor Vehicles Officer has decided the issue of valid driving license of the driver of offending vehicle. Thus there is no scope to interfere.

¶42

However as the Judgment and Award of the Learned Trial Judge is also assailed with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded it is necessary to consider the quantum of compensation awarded. As courts and Tribunal are empowered under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 to award compensation which appears to it to be just courts and tribunal after computing compensation as per arithmetical calculation and by following the guidelines laid down under law or by Judicial decisions can consider as to whether the said compensation is just and reasonable. In the event Courts and Tribunals consider the compensation excessive the same may be reduced to the extent what the Court thinks fit. In the event the Court is of the view that it is required to be enhanced the same may be enhanced.

¶43

In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd VS Indira Srivastava reported in AIR 2008 S.C. P.845 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶44

‘23. The expression just must also be given its logical meaning. Whereas it cannot be a bonanza or a source of profit but in considering as to what would

¶45

7

¶46

be just and equitable all facts and circumstances must be taken into consideration.’

¶47

In the case of T.N. State Transportation Ltd. VS Rajapriya and ors. reported in (2005) 6 SCC 236 the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

¶48

‘10. Much of the calculation necessarily remains in the realm of hypothesis and in that region arithmetic is a good servant but a bad master” since there are so often many imponderables. In every case it is the overall picture that matters” and the court must try to assess as best as it can the loss suffered.’

¶49

In the instant case the victim was police personnel of the State Government, where on death of employee the widow receives pension or compassionate appointment. In Motor accident compensation cases hypothesis and ground realities are applied. Although grant of pension or death benefits cannot deprive the dependents from claiming compensation nor the death benefits received can be adjusted from compensation computed but the said factors may be taken into consideration along with the compensation computed by arithmetical calculation to decide what should be just and reasonable compensation.

¶50

In the instant case the claimant/respondent no-1 is receiving widow pension as stated by her in her cross examination. Although receipt of pension and death benefits is not a ground to deprive compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 nor can the death benefits received be adjusted

¶51

8

¶52

from the compensation but the same can be taken into consideration along with the compensation computed to decide just compensation.

¶53

In the instant case considering the compensation computed and the fact the claimant/respondent no-1 widow of the victim is getting pension of Rs. 21,000/- this Court is of the view that compensation of Rs. 50,00,000/(Rupees fifty lakh is just and reasonable).

¶54

Hence this Appeal FMA No. 1385 of 2025 stands disposed. judgment and Award dated 24^th December 2024 passed by Learned Additional District Judge 6^th Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 215 of 2020 stands modified to the extent that the claimant/respondent no-1 is entitled to Rs. 50,00,000/(Rupees fifty lakh) only along with interest @5% per annum from the date of filing claim case till, today. The appellant Insurance Company shall deposit before the Registrar General High Court Calcutta Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakh) only along with interest @5% p.a. from the date of filing claim case till today. Such deposit shall be made within 8 weeks from the date of communication of this order. In the event compensation awarded by the Learned Trial Court is already deposited no further deposit be made.

¶55

The claimants/respondents are permitted to withdraw the compensation amount of Rs. 50 lakh along with interest including accrued interest if any upon compliance of necessary formalities. Balance amount with accrued interest if any be returned to the appellant Future General Insurance Co. Ltd.

¶56

9

¶57

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, should be made available to the parties upon compliance with the requisite formalities.

¶58

(Biswaroop Chowdhury, J.)

The Future Generali India Ins Co. Ltd. v. Sushama Mahata and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Future Generali India Ins Co. Ltd. v. Sushama Mahata and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Ergo Gen Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Kaushalya Devi & Ors.

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Ruma Mukherjee and Ors.

Dibakar Haldar Vs Union of India

M/S. Calcutta Bone Mills & Fertilsers (P) Ltd. Vs M/S. Das Organochem (P) Ltd.

Balaram Ghosh and Ors. Vs Oriental Ins Co. Ltd. and Anr.

United India Ins Co. Ltd. Vs Sanatan Bhattacharya and Anr.