The Calcutta High Court has held that driving a vehicle without a driving licence cannot by itself be a ground to deprive the victim or his family of compensation when the death or injury is caused by the rash and negligent driving of another vehicle.

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury made the observation while disposing of appeals filed by Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the claimants against a compensation award passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3rd Court, Krishnanagar, Nadia.

The appeals arose out of a case concerning the death of a 17-year-old boy in a road accident.

The Insurance Company had challenged its liability on the ground that the deceased was a minor and was driving the Scooty without a driving licence. It also argued that the deceased's unlicensed driving had contributed to the accident.

The High Court, however, noted that while driving without a licence could be a ground for prosecuting the driver of a vehicle, it could not be treated as a ground to deprive the victim or his family of compensation where the injury or death occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of another vehicle.

The Court further found that the Insurance Company had failed to prove contributory negligence on the part of the deceased.

According to the claimants' case, on December 12, 2016, the deceased was riding his sister's Scooty along with a pillion rider towards Krishnanagar. When they reached near Shanghashree Club at Bhaduri Nayakhali Para, a Bolero car allegedly travelling from the opposite direction at excessive speed lost control and hit the Scooty.

Both the rider and pillion rider were thrown off the road and sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to Nadia District Hospital, Krishnanagar, where the Emergency Medical Officer declared both of them dead.

The trial court had awarded Rs. 1,77,000 each to the two claimants, along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application.

The claimants challenged the quantum, arguing that the deceased's monthly income ought to have been assessed at Rs. 6,000 instead of Rs. 3,000, and that future prospects and consortium had not been properly considered.

The High Court partly accepted the claimants' submissions.

The Court noted that although the evidence indicated that the deceased earned Rs. 6,000 per month while working at Ray Shoe Store, the proprietor of the establishment had not been examined. Considering this and the age of the deceased, the Court held that it would be reasonable to assess his monthly income at Rs. 4,000.

After adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income was calculated at Rs. 5,600. After deducting 50% towards personal expenses, the monthly contribution to the family came to Rs. 2,800.

Applying a multiplier of 18, the Court calculated the loss of dependency at Rs. 6,40,800. The claimants were additionally held entitled to Rs. 40,000 each towards consortium and Rs. 30,000 towards loss of estate and funeral expenses.

The Court calculated the total compensation at Rs. 6,41,800, but held that Rs. 6,50,000 would constitute just and reasonable compensation.

Accordingly, the High Court modified the trial court's award and directed Oriental Insurance Company Limited to deposit Rs. 6,50,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the date of the High Court's judgment.

The amount was directed to be deposited before the Registrar General of the High Court within eight weeks from communication of the order.

The appeals, FMA 1186 of 2025 and FMAT(MV) 723 of 2024, were accordingly disposed of.

Case: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Tapas Roy & Ors.

Case No.: F.M.A. 1186 of 2025 with FMAT (MV) 723 of 2024

Click here to read order