Sikha Saha and Anr. Vs Partha Das and Ors.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE

¶2

Present:

¶3

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak

¶4

F.M.A. 50 of 2025

¶5

Smt. Sikha Saha & Another

¶6

Vs. Partha Das & Ors. With F.M.A.T. (MV)/79/2024 The National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Sikha Saha & Ors. With CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

¶7

For the appellants in F.M.A. 50 of 2025 and for the respondent in F.M.A.T. (MV)/79/2024 : Mr. Uday Sankar Sarkar Mr. Nabanit Sengupta For Oriental Insurance Company Limited in FMA 50 of 2025 and Defendant no. 5 in FMAT (MV)/79/2024 : Mr. Bipul Ranjan Bhattacharjee For National Insurance Company : Mr. Supriya Singh Heard & Judgment on : January 6, 2026

¶8

Debangsu Basak, J.:-

¶9

CAN 1 of 2025 is an application seeking condonation of delay of 272 days

¶10

in preferring the appeal being F.M.A.T. (MV)/79 of 2024.

¶11

2

¶12

For the ends of justice, the causes shown in the application are accepted as sufficient.

¶13

Delay in making and preferring the appeal is condoned.

¶14

CAN 1 of 2025 is, therefore, allowed.

¶15

Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned judgment and order.

¶16

By the impugned judgment and order, learned Judge allowed a motor accident claim.

¶17

Of the two appeals, F.M.A. 50 of 2025 is at the behest of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased victim. F.M.A.T. (MV)/79/2024 is at the behest of an Insurance Company.

¶18

Evidence led before the learned Trial Judge establishes that there was collusion between an Alto and a truck. The appellant in F.M.A.T. (MV)/79/2024 is the Insurance Company in respect of the Alto vehicle.

¶19

The heirs and legal representatives of the deceased victim claim that the monthly income of the deceased was taken at Rs.5,000/- per month while it should be Rs.6,338/- in terms of the minimum wage for an unskilled labour as recognized by the State of West Bengal. It is contended that the deceased victim was sitting inside the Alto vehicle while he met with the accident. Taking such monthly income of the deceased victim, the

¶20

3

¶21

compensation should be enhanced. Moreover, the learned Trial Judge

¶22

erred in not allowing 25% as future prospect.

¶23

Learned advocate appearing for the appellant, Insurance Company submits that, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the truck. Charge sheet was against the driver of the truck. She contends that the evidence stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck. Consequently, according to her, the Insurance Company of the Alto vehicle is not liable.

¶24

The other Insurance Company is also represented.

¶25

There are two issues to be considered in the two appeals. One is the quantum of compensation awarded and the other is whether or not the Insurance Company of the Alto vehicle is liable.

¶26

So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I find that the learned Trial Judge proceeded on the basis that the deceased victim was an unskilled labour. Learned Trial Judge took Rs.5,000/- per month as the income of the deceased victim.

¶27

However, the Circular dated June 22, 2018 of the Government of West Bengal states that Rs.6,338/- would be the minimum wages per month in respect of the unskilled labour.

¶28

4

¶29

There is no material on record to establish why Rs.5,000/- per month was

¶30

taken as the income of the deceased victim. Rather the Circular of the State of West Bengal fixing the minimum wages of the unskilled labour should be taken into consideration.

¶31

In such circumstances, the monthly income of the deceased victim is enhanced to Rs.6,338/- per month in terms of the Circular of the State of West Bengal dated June 22, 2018.

¶32

Learned Trial Judge erred in not granting future prospect which is a component available to a victim. Therefore, future prospect pegged at 25% is also awarded.

¶33

The compensation, therefore, receivable be calculated as follows:-

¶34

Head of the Item	Compensation	Assessment of
	Assessed by	the Just
	the Ld. Tribunal	compensation
Monthly Income of	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 6338/-
the deceased at the
time of death
Annual Income	Rs. 60,000/-	Rs. 76,056/-

¶35

5

¶36

Multiplicant=Annual Income– x 14 (Multiplier)	Rs. 8,40,000/-	Rs. 10,64,784/-
Less 1/3^rdof the	Rs. 2,80,000/-	Rs. 3,54,928/-
amount for personal
living expenses
=	Rs. 5,60,000/-	Rs. 7,09.856/-
Add Future	Nil	Rs. 1,77,464/-
Prospects @ 25%
Add General Damage	Rs. 70,000/-	Rs. 70,000/-
Total Compensation	Rs. 6,15,000/-	Rs. 9,57,320/-

¶37

Interest @ 6% to be paid upon the enhanced compensation amount from the date of claim application, i.e. 18.09.2019, till the realization of the amount.

¶38

The enhanced awarded amount should be distributed between the

¶39

claimants in the following manner :-

¶40

1^st claimant’s share – 1/3^rd + 1/36

¶41

2nd claimant’s share – 1/3rd + 1/36

¶42

3^rd claimant’s share – 1/18^th

¶43

4^th claimant’s share – 1/18^th

¶44

6

¶45

5^th claimant’s share – 1/18^th

¶46

6^th claimant’s share – 1/18^th

¶47

7^th claimant’s share – 1/18^th

¶48

So far as the liability of the Insurance Company of the Alto is concerned, it

¶49

is an admitted fact that the Alto vehicle was also insured.

¶50

It is established at the trial that the deceased was a passenger in that Alto

¶51

vehicle. Deceased expired due to the injury suffered in the collusion between the Alto vehicle and the truck. That passenger of an Alto vehicle is not insured, is not established at the trial. Therefore, the Insurance

¶52

Company of the Alto vehicle is also responsible.

¶53

The contention, therefore, that the truck was guilty of rash and negligent

¶54

driving in the facts of the present case is not relevant.

¶55

Learned Trial Judge directed division of the liability of 50-50 basis between two Insurance Companies.

¶56

In my view, the same is incorrect. Both the Insurance Companies are

¶57

jointly and severally liable.

¶58

Impugned judgment and order of decree is modified to that extent.

¶59

Learned Trial Judge granted interest @6% p.a.

¶60

7

¶61

The Insurance Company involved will deposit the quantum assessed within four weeks from date with the Registrar, Jalpaiguri Circuit Bench,

¶62

Calcutta High Court.

¶63

It is clarified that the interest awarded by the learned Trial Judge will be applicable for the enhanced amount from the date of the application till the date of the deposit.

¶64

F.M.A. 50 of 2025 and F.M.A.T. (MV)/79 of 2024 and the connected

¶65

applications are disposed of.

¶66

( Debangsu Basak, J.)

¶67

S.D. /Dd

Sikha Saha and Anr. v. Partha Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sikha Saha and Anr. v. Partha Das and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.H.Ivf and Infertility Research Centre Ltd. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Ujjal Kumar Banerjee @ Bandyopadhyay Vs Tshering Y Bhutia and Anr.

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Lakshi Kanta Sen @ Lakshmi Kanta Sen

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Bimal Kumar Dey

The State of West Bengal and Ors. Vs Dilip Kumar Saha