Calcutta High Court upholds Rs 29 lakh payout to victim’s kin despite 6-day FIR delay

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury clarified that where the vehicle number is mentioned, the police must verify the allegations and investigate accordingly.

The Calcutta High Court upheld the compensation awarded to the family of the victim, Megdoot Dhak, including his minor daughter, and directed that her share be deposited in a nationalised bank or post office till she attains majority.

‘Vehicle number, duty of police’

• The high court pointed out that an FIR in cases of rash and negligent driving need not always mention the vehicle number and may be registered against an unknown vehicle, rejecting the insurer’s argument.
• It further clarified that where the vehicle number is mentioned, the police must verify the allegations and investigate accordingly.
• On the other hand, where the vehicle number is not mentioned, it is the duty of the police to identify and seize the offending vehicle during investigation.
• The Calcutta High Court upheld the trial court’s award of Rs 29.37 lakh, taking into account future prospects, personal expenses, and general damages.

Case: Returning home

It was placed on record that on April 19, 2021, while the victim Megdoot Dhak was returning home from work and had stopped by the roadside.

While he had parked his motorcycle at the edge of the road to attend to nature’s call, the offending vehicle, allegedly being driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit him and his motorcycle.

This accident allegedly caused grievous bleeding injuries to the victim, and his motorcycle was badly damaged in the accident. Immediately thereafter, he was brought to the hospital and attended, where he was declared dead. 

The trial court, in its August 2023 order, awarded compensation of Rs 29.37 lakh to the family of the victim. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company approached the Calcutta High Court with this appeal. 

Arguments of parties

Appearing for the insurance company, advocate Sucharita Paul argued that the involvement of the vehicle was doubtful since the vehicle number was not mentioned in the FIR and the FIR was lodged after five days.

It was further submitted that the vehicle was seized after about one and a half months, which, according to the insurer, raised further doubts.

The insurer also contended that the compensation awarded was excessive.

Representing the claimants, advocate K Mandal submitted that the victim was the sole bread earner of his family, as such claimants are put to serious financial stringency due to the premature accidental death of the victim and are deprived of dependable support.

Mandal mentioned that the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle was the sole cause of the pathetic accident, which could easily have been avoided if the driver had taken proper care and caution at the material time.