Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance ... vs Ruma Sen & Others on 6 September, 2023

                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                          APPELLATE SIDE

PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIVAS PATTANAYAK
                            FMA 28 of 2022
                             CAN 3 of 2022
           Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited
                                  versus
                           Ruma Sen & Others
                                   With
                            COT 51 of 2021
                          Ruma Sen & Another
                                  versus
           Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another


For   the   Appellant-          : Mr. Rajesh Singh, Advocate
Insurance Company

For the Respondents-            : Mr. Abu Abbas Uddin, Advocate

Claimants                         Ms. Nahid Rahaman, Advocate

Heard on                        : 14.09.2022, 23.09.2022, 05.01.2023

Judgment on                     : 06.09.2023


Bivas Pattanayak, J. :-

1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 26th

July, 2019 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IXth

Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in M.A.C. Case No. 84 of 2012 granting

compensation of Rs. 34,05,000/-together with interest in favour of the

claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

2. The brief fact of the case is that on 7th June, 2011 while the victim was

proceeding in the offending vehicle bearing registration no. WB-20G-8518

(Car) from Guwahati to Kolkata and when it reached near Srikrishna

Kalibari under Islampur Police Station the car, on being driven in rash and

negligent manner, overturned on NH-31 and fell down on a road side ditch.

As a result of the said accident, the victim and other passengers sustained

serious injuries and were removed to Islampur Sub-Divisional Hospital by

the local people. The attending doctor declared the victim brought dead.

On account of sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants being the

widow and daughter of the victim filed application for compensation of Rs.

40,00,000/- together with interest under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988.

3. The claimants in order to establish their case, examined two witnesses

and produced documents which have been marked as Exhibits-1 to 10

respectively.

4. The appellant-insurance company did not adduce any evidence.

5. Upon considering the materials on record and the evidence adduced on

behalf of the claimants, learned Tribunal granted compensation of

Rs.34,05,000/- together with interest in favour of the claimants under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and

award of the learned tribunal, the insurance company has preferred the

present appeal.

7. Challenging the said award of the learned tribunal, the respondents-

claimants have also filed cross objection being COT 51 of 2021.

8. Both the appeal and the cross-objection are taken up together for

consideration and disposal.

9. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance

company submitted that in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988, it is settled principles of law that the claimants must

prove and establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was

guilty of rash and negligent act. In the instant case, the claimants did not

adduce the evidence of any eyewitness to establish such fact of negligence

of the driver of the offending vehicle. Only on the basis of oral evidence of

PW1, who was not an eyewitness to the occurrence, the learned tribunal

held the issue of rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending

vehicle to have been proved in favour of the claimants without proper

analysis of the contents of the written complaint which was clearly not

lodged by an eyewitness to the occurrence and the final report submitted

by the investigating agency mentioning that no evidence could be collected

during the course of investigation against the driver which is explicit that

the driver of the offending vehicle was not guilty of negligence. Thus, the

claimants are not entitled to get compensation in absence of cogent proof

of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle in the said accident. In

support of his contentions, he relied on the following decisions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court:

i. Minu B. Mehta and Ors. versus Balkrishna Ramchandra

Nayan and Ors. reported in (1977) 2 SCC 441

ii. Surender Kumar Arora and Ors. Manoj Bisla and Ors.

reported in (2012) 4 SCC 552

iii. Lachoo Ram and Ors. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. and

Ors. reported in (2014) 13 SCC 254.

He further submitted that the evidence of the claimants shows that the

offending vehicle bearing registration no. WB-20G-8518 was given to the

deceased by Swami Ishatmananda, Secretary of Ramakrishna Mission as

per certificate issued by the Ramakrishna Mission Authority for taking the

said vehicle to Kolkata for repairing. On the relevant date of accident, the

offending vehicle was driven by deceased Arindam Sen and not by Bibhas

Adhikary which is comprehensible from the fact that during investigation

the police authority seized the driving license of Arindam Sen and not of

Bibhas Adhikary. Since said Bibhas Adhikary was not driving the offending

vehicle on the relevant date of accident hence the investigating agency

could not collect any materials against him resulting in submission of final

report upon completion of investigation. The materials on record clearly

indicates that the accident occurred on the relevant date due to rash and

negligent driving of the deceased Arindam Sen, however, in order to get

compensation, the driver's name was swapped and changed to Bibhas

Adhikary in the First Information Report lodged after 9 days of accident

and thereby seeking to commit fraud upon the insurance company to grab

public money.

Furthermore he submitted that even if it is assumed to be true as per the

First Information Report that the driver of the offending vehicle was Bibhas

Adhikary, then the materials on record goes to show the said driver was

not having any valid and effective driving license to drive any vehicle and

more particularly the offending vehicle and, therefore, the appellant-

insurance company being the insurer cannot be held liable to pay

compensation to the claimants in the event of statutory violation of the

condition of the insurance policy. The investigating agency during the

course of investigation has not seized any driving license of Bibhas

Adhikary which also clearly indicates that the said driver did not have

valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The owner

of the offending vehicle did not appear before the learned tribunal and

produce any valid and effective driving license of the authorised driver

which raises adverse inference against the owner that he was well aware of

such fact. In circumstances where it is found that the driver was not

holding valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, the settled

proposition of law is to pass an order directing for payment of

compensation to the claimants by the insurance company and liberty

thereof be given to the insurance company to recover the compensation

satisfied from the owner of the offending vehicle. To buttress his

contention, he relied on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Challa Bharathamma and Ors.

reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 and in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. versus

Nanjappan and Ors. reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224.

Challenging the quantum of compensation assessed by the learned

Tribunal, Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance

company, submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in determining the

income of the deceased on the basis of the income tax return for

Assessment Year 2011-2012 which has admittedly been filed on 25th April,

2012 after the death of the deceased. As per settled proposition of law,

income tax return filed after the death of the deceased cannot form basis of

determination of income of the deceased-victim. To buttress his

contentions, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

V. Subbulakshmi and Ors. versus S. Lakshmi and Ors. reported in

(2008) 4 SCC 224.

Further since the victim, at the time of accident, was 40 years of age, the

multiplier should be 15 instead of 16 adopted by the learned Tribunal in

view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Sarla Verma

(Smt) and Others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another

reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.

Moreover, the general damages under the conventional heads should be

Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs. 1,10,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal in

view of observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and Others reported in (2017)

16 SCC 680.

In light of his aforesaid submissions, he prayed for setting aside and/or

modification of the impugned judgment and award of the learned Tribunal.

10. In reply to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant-insurance

company, Mr. Abu Abbas Uddin, learned advocate for the respondent nos.

1 and 2 (claimants) submitted that PW1, widow of the deceased has

categorically stated of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

offending vehicle. Even if the evidence of PW1 with regard to the negligence

of the driver of the offending vehicle is discounted, from the manner in

which the accident has taken place resulting in death of the victim and

one other and injury to the driver, the negligence of the driver of the

offending vehicle is clearly conceivable. The fact of the accident may

sometimes constitute evidence of negligence and in such circumstances,

the principle of res ipsa loquitur is applicable. In support of his aforesaid

contentions, he relied on the following decisions:

i. Shyam Sunder and Others versus The State of Rajasthan

reported in 1974 AIR SC 890

ii. N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd. versus M. Karumai Ammal and Ors. Etc.

reported in 1980 AIR SC 1354

iii. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. versus Pearl

Beverages Ltd. reported in (2021) 7 SCC 704

iv. Smt. Kamlesh Balmiki @ Kamalesh Balmiki and Ors. versus

United India Insurance Company Limited and Anr. (FMA 987

of 2013)

He further submitted that in proceedings relating to claim cases, the

claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of

preponderance of probability and the standard of proof beyond reasonable

doubt cannot be applied by the learned Tribunal while dealing with the

motor accident cases. To buttress his contentions, he relied on the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Sunita & Ors. versus

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in

(2020) 13 SCC 486. Further the oral evidence of PW1 should be taken

into account in the absence of any contrary evidence and he relied on the

decision of Orissa High Court passed in Mataji Bewa and Ors. versus

Hemanta Kumar Jena and Anr. reported in 1994 ACJ 1303. Placing

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in

Shamanna and Anr. versus The Divisional Manager, The Oriental

Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 he conceded

that in the event the court finds that the driver was not holding effective

driving license it may apply the principles of pay and recovery.

He also submitted that the claimants are entitled to an amount equivalent

to 25% of the annual income of the victim towards future prospect since at

the time of accident the victim was 40 years of age and was on fixed salary

as well as self-employed.

11. Despite service of notice of appeal, none appeared on behalf of the

respondent no.3, owner of the offending vehicle.

12. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, the

following issues have fallen for consideration:

Firstly, whether there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the

driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date of accident.

Secondly, whether on the relevant date of accident the offending vehicle

was driven by Bibhas Adhikary or the deceased Arindam Sen.

Thirdly, whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and

effective driving licence to drive such vehicle on the relevant date of

accident.

Fourthly, whether the learned Tribunal erred in determining the income of

the deceased-victim.

Fifthly, whether the multiplier should be 15 instead of 16 adopted by the

learned Tribunal.

Sixthly, whether the general damages under the conventional heads should

be restricted to Rs. 70,000/- instead of Rs. 1,10,000/- granted by the

learned Tribunal.

And lastly, whether the claimants are entitled to an amount equivalent to

25% of the annual income of the deceased towards future prospect.

13. The first issue relates to whether there was rash and negligent driving

on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant date of

accident. It is not in quarrel that in a proceeding under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the claimants are to establish the proof of

negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as has been rightly argued

by Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company

relying on Minu B. Mehta (supra), Surender Kumar Arora (supra) and Lachoo

Ram. The claimants in order to establish such fact of rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, have examined the widow of

the deceased (claimant no.1), Ruma Sen as PW1. Though PW1 in her

evidence-in-chief deposed that the accident took place due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, however, in cross-

examination, she admitted that she came to know about the accident from

the police authority. Thus, it goes without saying that PW1 has not

witnessed the accident. Mr. Abu Abbas Uddin, learned advocate for

respondents-claimants relying on Mataji Bewa (supra) strenuously argued

that evidence of PW1 can be taken into consideration in the absence of

contrary evidence. In Mataji Bewa (supra), the positive evidence of the

claimants that the deceased was a pedestrian and the truck came and

knocked him down, has not been impeached in any manner by way of

cross-examination. Whereas in the case at hand, PW1 herself has admitted

that she came to learn of the incident from the police. Thus, the evidence

of PW1 is not a direct evidence. The facts of the cited decision is thus

distinguishable.

Therefore, the evidence of PW1 in respect of rash and negligent driver on

the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is inconsequential. Be that as

it may, in claim cases, the claimants are merely to establish their case on

the touchstone of preponderance of probability and the standard of proof

beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases is not applicable to motor

accident cases. [See Sunita (supra)]. The Court has to analyze the materials

before it to decide whether the case of the claimant is acceptable or not.

From the written complaint (Exhibit-1), it is found that, on the relevant

date, the deceased-victim along with his friend Sk Morshed Ali was

travelling in the said vehicle driven by one Bibhas Adhikary. The vehicle

turned turtle and fell on nearby ditch. Due to such accident, the victim

Arindam Sen and his friend Sk. Morshed Ali died in the hospital and the

driver sustained injuries. The fact that the vehicle turned turtle on the

relevant date and time, resulting in death of two persons who were

travelling in the said vehicle and injury to the driver has never been

disputed. As a rule, mere proof that an event has happened or an accident

has occurred, the cause of which is unknown, is not evidence of

negligence. But the peculiar circumstances constituting the event or

accident, in a particular case, may themselves proclaim in concordant,

clear and unambiguous voices the negligence of somebody as the cause of

the event or accident. The driver of the offending vehicle on the relevant

date had the charge of the vehicle which overturned is an instance of

special kind of accident which tells its own story. The manner in which the

accident has taken place resulting in death of two persons and injury to

the driver clearly attracts the principles of res ipsa loquitur where the facts

of the accident constitute evidence of negligence. I find substance in the

submission of Mr. Abu Abbas Uddin, learned advocate for the respondent

nos. 1 and 2, relying on Shyam Sunder (supra), N. K. V. Bros (P) Ltd. (supra)

and Smt. Kamlesh Balmiki @ Kamalesh Balmiki (supra). In Pearl Beverages

Ltd. (supra) cited on behalf of respondents-claimants, the question which

arose before the Hon'ble Court is whether the NCDRC was correct in

holding that the appellant is not entitled to invoke the shield of Clause (2c)

of the Contract of Insurance, under which, it was not liable, if the person

driving the vehicle, was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, or

drugs. The facts of the cited decision is dissimilar to the case at hand. It is

true that final report has been submitted against the driver of the

offending vehicle since no evidence could be collected against him.

However, the final report at best can be corroborative and not a

substantive piece of evidence. The appellant-insurance company has not

adduced any evidence in the contrary to negate the claim of the claimants

relating to negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. In view of the

above discussion upon analysis of the materials on record, negligence of

the driver of the offending vehicle is transparently clear.

In Minu B. Mehta (supra), the Hon'ble Court agreed with the finding of the

Tribunal and High Court that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry

that the car in which the applicant and one other were travelling was hit

causing injuries to both of them. It accepted the testimony of doctor and

customs officer that the lorry crossed the road dividers, ran into wrong

side and hit the car which was driven by the applicant. The finding of the

Tribunal rejecting the plea that accident was due to mechanical defect was

upheld. The facts involved in the cited decision is factually different.

In Surender Kumar Arora (supra), the claimants were the parents of the

deceased person. The deceased was a doctor by profession. The deceased

was travelling in the motor vehicle driven by the respondent no.1 who

happens to be a close associate/friend. It has come in the evidence of the

claimants as well as the respondent no.1 that the vehicle in question was

not driven in rash and negligent manner by the respondent no.1. Since the

claimants-parents of the deceased failed to establish rash and negligence

driving, the judgment of the High Court was upheld which sustained the

order passed by the learned Tribunal rejecting the claim of the parents of

compensation. The facts involved in the aforesaid case is quite dissimilar

to the case at hand and thus is distinguishable.

In Lachoo Ram (supra), the bus was standing at the red light and on being

asked, soon after starting from the traffic signal it stopped at 100 to 150

yards and it was found that the bus could not have started on a high

speed. The road at the place of the accident was very narrow and the

witness present on the spot has not claimed that the bus driver had given

a signal to the deceased motorcyclist to overtake him. The witness could

not see the actual accident because at that time the motorcyclist in an

effort to overtake the bus had gone to his right side and was not visible

and, therefore, he could only hear the sound of crash. It was not the case

of any witnesses that the bus driver took any sudden turn while

proceeding from the traffic signal or that he swerved the bus to the right

side. On such basis, the Hon'ble Court did not accept the contention of the

claimants of rash and negligent act of the driver. The facts of the cited

decision are quite dissimilar to the case at hand and, therefore, it is

distinguishable.

14. With regard to the second issue as to whether the alleged vehicle was

driven by Bibhas Adhikary or not, Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the

appellant-insurance company, has strenuously argued that on the relevant

date of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by deceased Arindam

Sen and not by Bibhas Adhikary which is comprehensible from the fact

that during investigation the police authority seized the driving license of

Arindam Sen and not of Bibhas Adhikary and the name of driver Bibhas

Adhikary has been swapped to get compensation. It is found that PW1,

widow of the deceased, though not an eye-witness to the occurrence, in her

cross-examination has stated that on the relevant date Bibhas Adhikary

was driving the vehicle and not her husband Arindam Sen. The written

complaint (Exhibit 1) shows that on the relevant date the vehicle was

driven by Bibhas Adhikary, which is also depicted in the final report

(Exhibit 2). The aforesaid fact in the written complaint and final report

has not been disputed by leading any evidence of rebuttal. It is true as per

final report the driving licence of the deceased Arindam Sen was seized

and not of Bibhas Adhikary. However, seizure of driving licence of the

victim does not per se lead to the fact that on the relevant date the victim

was driving the vehicle. The appellant-insurance company did not adduce

any contrary evidence to primarily establish that on the relevant date it

was Arindam Sen who was driving the vehicle and not Bibhas Adhikary.

Precisely there is nothing on record to suggest that on the relevant date

the vehicle was driven by the victim and not by Bibhas Adhikary. Thus the

materials placed on record manifest that the offending vehicle on the

relevant date was driven by Bibhas Adhikary. The argument advanced on

behalf of appellant-insurance company fall short of merit.

15. With regard to the third issue as to whether the driver of the offending

vehicle was holding valid and effective licence on the relevant date of

accident, it is found that the insurance company in its written statement

has raised the plea that the alleged offending driver on the relevant date of

accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the

particular class of vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident. Mr. Singh,

learned advocate for appellant-insurance company vociferously argued

that since there was no seizure of driving licence of the driver of the alleged

vehicle, hence he was not having such driving licence. Save and except

that the driving licence of the driver of that offending vehicle was not

seized, there is no other materials to suggest that the driver was not

holding valid and effective driving licence on the relevant date of accident.

The non-seizure of driving licence by the investigating authority does not

ipso facto establish the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not

holding valid and effective driving licence. The insurance company having

raised such specific plea, burden of proof was upon it to discharge,

however, in spite of getting opportunity, the appellant-insurance company

has not made any endeavour to adduce the evidence of the driver of the

offending vehicle or any other evidence to establish the fact that the driver

was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive such vehicle. In

the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the driver of the

offending vehicle on the relevant date was not holding valid and effective

licence. For such reasons, the principle of pay and recovery as laid down in

Challa Bharathamma (supra), Nanjappan (supra) and Shamanna (supra) is

not applicable to the facts of the case.

16. With regard to the fourth issue relating to determination of the

income of the victim, it is found that learned Tribunal has determined

income of the victim at Rs. 3,08,665/- per annum considering the income

tax return for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 (Exhibit-9 collectively).

Mr. Singh, learned advocate for the appellant-insurance company, relying

on V. Subbulakshmi (supra) intensely argued that the income tax return

filed after the death of the victim cannot be taken into consideration. It is

not in dispute that the accident has taken place on 7th June, 2011 and the

income tax return for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 has been filed on

25th April, 2012. Thus, it manifest that the income tax return for the

Assessment Year 2011-2012 has been filed after the death of the victim. I

find substance in the submission of Mr. Singh relying on V. Subbulakshmi

(supra) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the observation of

High Court in not relying on the income tax return filed after the accident.

However, the claimants have claimed the income of the victim on two

heads namely, income from salaries and income from business. Admittedly

at the time of accident, the victim was an employee of Hindal Co, Belur.

The Form 16 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 has been filed by the

claimants issued on 2nd May, 2011 prior to the death of the victim. The

Form 16 shows annual income from salary of Rs.1,87,627/- which is also

appearing in the income tax return for the Assessment Year 2011-2012.

Thus, the annual income from salary of Rs. 1,87,627/- of the deceased is

acceptable. The Form 16 shows that such income from salary is not

taxable. It is noted that the tax on employment is Rs. 1,410/-. Now coming

to the income from business, it is found that save and except Trade

Enlistment Certificate (Exhibit 6), there is no other documentary evidence

of income from business. PW1, Ruma Sen, widow of the deceased, stated

in her evidence-in-chief that her deceased husband used to run business

of general order supplier. In cross-examination, she deposed that her

husband used to carry on such business along with her father-in-law

Basanta Kumar Sen. It is relevant to note that said Basanta Kumar Sen

was never examined before the Court to primarily establish that the

deceased used to carry on the business of general order supplier along

with his father. It is specifically contended that the victim used to earn

income of Rs.2,20,265/- from business. However, such income is not

supported by any sort of document. The Form 16 filed by the claimants

shows that the victim disclosed to his employer of not having any other

source of income. Such being the position, the income from business is far

from being acceptable. Accordingly in light of the above discussion, the

annual income of the deceased from salary of Rs. 1,87,627/- less

Rs.1,410/- (tax on employment) which comes to Rs.1,86,217/- should be

considered as the actual annual income of the victim.

17. With regard to the multiplier, it is found that the learned Tribunal has

adopted multiplier of 16. Admittedly the victim at the time of accident was

40 years old. Following the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma (Smt) (supra), the multiplier should be 15 instead of 16 adopted by

the learned Tribunal.

18. So far as the general damages are concerned, it is found that the

learned Tribunal has granted Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and

Rs. 50,000/- each towards loss of estate and loss of consortium

respectively. However, following the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are entitled to general damages

under the conventional heads of loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses to the tune of Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and

Rs.15,000/- respectively.

19. With the regard to future prospect, it is found that at the time of

accident the victim was admittedly 40 years old and was on fixed salary.

Bearing in mind the aforesaid and following the proposition laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants are

entitled to an amount equivalent to 25% of the annual income of the victim

towards future prospect.

20. In view of the above discussion, the calculation of compensation is

made hereunder:

Calculation of Compensation

Annual income Rs. 1,87,627/-

           Less: Tax on employment            Rs. 1,410/-
           Actual annual income               Rs. 1,86,217/-
           Add: Future prospect @ 25% of      Rs. 46,554/-
                the actual annual income
                                              Rs. 2,32,771/-
           Less: 1/3rd towards personal       Rs. 77,590/-
                 and living expenses
                                              Rs. 1,55,181/-
           Adopting multiplier 15             Rs. 23,27,715/-
           (Rs. 1,55,181/- x 15)




            Add: General damages                    Rs. 70,000/-
                  Loss of estate: Rs.15,000/-
                  Loss of consortium: Rs.40,000/-
                  Funeral expenses: Rs. 15,000/-
            Total compensation                      Rs. 23,97,715/-

21. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs. 23,97,715/- together with

interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

application (i.e. on 27.03.2012) till the date of actual payment.

22. It is found that the appellant-insurance company has deposited an

amount of Rs. 53,76,495/- in terms of order of this Court vide OD Chalan

No. 1829 dated 25.01.2022 and also made deposit of statutory amount of

Rs. 25,000/- vide OD Chalan No. 3136 dated 25.03.2021. Both the

aforesaid deposits together with accrued interest be adjusted against the

entire compensation amount and interest thereon.

23. Respondents-claimants are directed to deposit balance court fees on

the compensation assessed, if not already paid.

24. Learned Registrar General, High Court, Calcutta shall release the

compensation amount together with interest in favour of the respondents-

claimants in equal proportion, after making payment of Rs. 40,000/- in

favour of respondent no.1, widow of the deceased, towards spousal