The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Somnath Bhattacharya & Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7558 Cal

15-11-2022
Item no.14
                      IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                               Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
 Subrata
                                    CAN No.1 of 2019
                                  (Old CAN No.10272 of 2019)
                                         with
                                    CAN No.2 of 2019
                                  (Old CAN No.10298 of 2019)
                                           with
                                    CAN No.3 of 2022
                                             in
                                  FMAT No.965 of 2019
                         The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
                                            -vs-
                              Somnath Bhattacharya & Anr.


                       Mr. Rajesh Singh                   ...for the appellant

                       Mr. Krishnu Banik ...for respondent no.1-claimant

CAN No.1 of 2019 (Old CAN No.10272 of 2019) is an application filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.

Mr Banik, learned advocate appearing for the claimant, does not raise any objection about condoning the delay. As per the report of the Additional Stamp Reporter dated January 22, 2021, there is delay of four days in preferring the appeal.

The grounds shown is sufficient to condone the delay.

Accordingly, CAN No.1 of 2019 (Old CAN No.10272 of 2019) is allowed condoning the delay.

The appeal is admitted and formally registered.

Call for the LCR.

The department shall take effective steps for bringing the LCR within two weeks from the date of

communication of this order.

Once the LCR is received and found complete on its examination, notice of arrival of LCR be served upon the learned advocate for the appellant.

The appellant shall prepare requisite number of informal paper books incorporating all relevant papers and documents, including pleadings, both oral and documentary evicence - printed, typewritten or cyclostyled out of court - and file the same in court within 15 days thereafter serving one copy thereof on the respondents.

Mr Singh, learned advocate appearing for the appellant, submits that as the second respondent, the owner of the vehicle, did not contest the claim application before the learned tribunal, service of notice of appeal upon him may be dispensed with.

It appears from the impugned judgment and award that the second respondent did not contest the case before the learned tribunal and it was disposed of ex parte against him.

In the aforesaid backdrop, service of notice of appeal upon the second respondent stands dispensed with.

As the first respondent-claimant has already entered appearance, service of notice of appeal is also dispensed with.

CAN No.2 of 2019 (old CAN No.10298 of 2019) for stay of operation of the impugned award dated June 13, 2019 passed by learned Judge, 5th Court, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Howrah in MACC No.234 of 2013 is taken up for hearing.

Mr Singh submits that the entire awarded amount

along with interest has been deposited in terms of the order dated July 21, 2022 of this court. In such context, Mr Singh seeks stay of operation of the impugned award till disposal of the appeal.

Therefore, since the entire awarded amount along with interest of Rs.45,63,895 has been deposited with the registry of this court vide challan no.1386 dated July 29, 2022 in terms of the order dated July 21, 2022, the stay granted by the aforesaid order is made absolute till disposal of the appeal.

Accordingly, CAN No.2 of 2019 (Old CAN No.10298 of 2019) stands disposed of.

CAN No.3 of 2022 filed by the first respondent- claimant for leave to withdraw a portion of the compensation amount deposited by the insurance company is also taken up for hearing.

Mr Banik, learned advocate for the applicant- claimant, submits that the claimant had to undergo amputation on his left leg, and that he incurred substantial medical expenses for undergoing operative measures.

Opposing such contention of the claimant, Mr Singh submits that after occurrence of the accident, fit certificate was issued to the claimant and he joined his services and more so, there is no loss of his monthly income.

Having heard learned advocates for both the parties, it appears that the respondent due to such accident had to undergo operative measures, accordingly I am inclined to allow the respondent for withdrawal of certain amount of money.

Accordingly, the claimant is given liberty to withdraw Rs.4,00,000 from the registry of this court. The withdrawal shall be subject to the result of the appeal.

The Registrar General of this court shall disburse such amount in favour of the claimant-first respondent upon satisfaction of his identity.

The remaining amount shall be invested in an auto- renewable fixed deposit scheme in a nationalised bank until further order.

CAN No.3 of 2022 stands, thus, disposed of

Let the appeal go out of the list with liberty to mention.

[Bivas Pattanayak, J]