Calcutta HC Raises Housewife Compensation to Rs 11 Lakh, Holds Stationary Truck Liable for NH-6 Crash That Killed Family of Four

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury affirmed negligent parking liability for a stationary truck on NH-6 and enhanced compensation for a housewife killed in the 2022 accident that wiped out most of a family.

A single-judge bench of the High Court at Calcutta, Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, sitting on the appellate side, has held that a vehicle parked illegally in the middle of a national highway cannot escape liability for a fatal accident merely because it was stationary at the time of impact. The judgment, delivered on 9 June 2026 in a cluster of four connected appeals arising from a single road accident on 16 April 2022 near Harina Bus Stand on NH-6 in Paschim Medinipur, affirmed the findings of the trial court on negligence, enhanced compensation for one of the deceased victims, and dismissed the insurer’s challenge in the other matter. The accident killed three members of the Samanta family — husband Shamit Samanta, wife Barnali Samanta Nandi, and their elder daughter Sinjini — while their younger daughter Saanvi sustained serious knee injuries.

The Accident and the Claims Before the Trial Court

On the morning of 16 April 2022, at around 9.00 AM, Shamit Samanta was driving his vehicle bearing registration number WB-82E/2293 along with his wife and two minor daughters from Kolkata towards Midnapore. Near Harina Bus Stand on NH-6, under Kharagpur (Local) Police Station, a lorry overtook the Samanta vehicle at high speed from the extreme left, ran onto the soil portion of the road, and raised a cloud of dust that made the area invisible. At that moment, a mini-truck bearing registration number WB-33/5717 was standing in the middle of the highway without any signal, in a non-parking zone. The Samanta vehicle dashed into the rear of the stationary truck. Shamit Samanta and Barnali Samanta Nandi died on the spot. Elder daughter Sinjini was taken to Midnapore Medical College and Hospital, where she was declared dead within a few hours. Younger daughter Saanvi sustained severe injuries to both knees and was undergoing treatment.

Two separate Motor Accident Claim cases were filed before the Additional District Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Sadar, Paschim Medinipur. MAC Case No. 262 of 2022 was filed by the claimants in respect of Barnali Samanta Nandi, the housewife. MAC Case No. 261 of 2022 was filed in respect of Shamit Samanta, the sole breadwinner. The vehicle owner of WB-33/5717 did not contest either case. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the offending vehicle, contested both cases by filing written statements.

By a common judgment dated 20 August 2024, the trial court awarded Rs 9,17,000 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing in MAC Case No. 262 of 2022, and Rs 2,10,79,100 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing in MAC Case No. 261 of 2022.

The Insurer’s Challenge and the Claimants’ Cross-Objections

Bajaj Allianz filed FMA 527 of 2025 against the award in MAC Case No. 262 of 2022, and FMA 1421 of 2024 against the award in MAC Case No. 261 of 2022. The claimants filed cross-objections in COT 8 of 2025 and COT 9 of 2025 respectively, seeking enhancement of compensation in both matters.

In both appeals, the insurer raised broadly similar grounds. It argued that the offending truck was stationary when the victim vehicle struck it from behind, and therefore the truck driver bore no responsibility. It contended that the accident occurred at 9.00 AM in broad daylight, making visibility a non-issue. It also produced photographs of the victim vehicle to suggest it was being driven at high speed. In FMA 1421 of 2024, the insurer additionally argued that the deceased Shamit Samanta himself drove rashly and negligently, that two eye witnesses — PW-2 and PW-4 — were not summoned witnesses and had appeared at the claimants’ request, and that the claimants had not exhibited Form 16 to prove the deceased’s income.

In FMA 527 of 2025, the insurer challenged the trial court’s acceptance of a notional monthly income of Rs 5,000 for the housewife Barnali Samanta Nandi. The claimants in their cross-objection sought enhancement of the notional income to Rs 10,000 per month. In COT 9 of 2025, the claimants argued that filial consortium had not been awarded and sought enhancement of the overall compensation in MAC Case No. 261 of 2022.

Whether a Stationary Vehicle Can Be Held Liable

Justice Chowdhury addressed the insurer’s core argument — that a stationary vehicle cannot be the cause of an accident — squarely and rejected it in both appeals. The bench held that a mere plea that a vehicle was stationary does not absolve its owner or driver from liability if the vehicle was parked in an improper or unauthorised place and that parking caused the accident.

The trial court had examined the evidence and assigned reasons for concluding that the driver of WB-33/5717 was negligent in parking the mini-truck in the middle of the road. The High Court found no error in that conclusion. Critically, the charge sheet submitted by the police stated that the incident occurred because the driver of WB-33/5717 had parked the vehicle illegally on the road. The charge sheet, the bench observed, corroborated the claimants’ case.

On the argument that the accident occurred in broad daylight and visibility was not an issue, the bench did not accept this as a ground to exonerate the truck driver. The illegality of the parking in a non-parking zone in the middle of the highway was the operative finding, independent of visibility conditions.

On the insurer’s argument in FMA 1421 of 2024 that Shamit Samanta himself drove rashly, the bench noted that the trial court had made it clear that no material evidence had been produced by the insurance company to substantiate that the deceased was responsible for the accident in any manner.

Credibility of Eye Witnesses Not Summoned by Court

The insurer in FMA 1421 of 2024 attacked the credibility of PW-2 and PW-4 on the ground that they were not summoned witnesses and had appeared at the claimants’ request. Justice Chowdhury rejected this argument. The bench held that the fact that eye witnesses in a motor accident claim case are not summoned witnesses does not destroy their credibility if their evidence creates confidence in the mind of the court. The bench also noted that PW-2 was a witness named in the charge sheet submitted by the police, and that the statements of PW-2 and PW-4 in cross-examination clearly showed that they had witnessed the accident.

Compensation for the Housewife: Notional Income and the Calculus of Domestic Service

In FMA 527 of 2025, the central dispute on quantum was the appropriate notional monthly income for Barnali Samanta Nandi, who was a housewife. The trial court had taken Rs 5,000 per month. The claimants sought Rs 10,000 per month.

Justice Chowdhury referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Arun Kumar Agarwal v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 9 SCC 218, where the court had recognised that the contribution made by a wife to the household is invaluable and cannot be computed in terms of money. The Supreme Court had observed that a housewife is in constant attendance of the family throughout the day and night, teaches children, provides guidance for their future, and renders services that a housekeeper or maidservant can never replicate. The bench quoted the Supreme Court’s formulation that “the amount payable to the dependants cannot be diminished on the ground that some close relation like a grandmother may volunteer to render some of the services.”

Applying these principles, the bench found that while the trial court’s award of Rs 9,17,000 could not be described as meagre, it required upward revision having regard to the status of the family and the responsibilities undertaken by the deceased. The bench fixed compensation at Rs 11,00,000 — an enhancement of approximately Rs 83,000 over the trial court’s figure — along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till realisation.

Compensation for the Breadwinner: Award Affirmed, Filial Consortium Claim Rejected

In FMA 1421 of 2024, the insurer challenged the award of Rs 2,10,79,100 in respect of Shamit Samanta. The claimants’ employer had been examined to prove income, and the trial court had applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, AIR 2017 SC 5157, to arrive at just and reasonable compensation.

Justice Chowdhury found no error in the trial court’s approach on quantum. The bench declined to interfere with the award of Rs 2,10,79,100.

On the claimants’ cross-objection seeking filial consortium, the bench noted that the decision in Pranay Sethi does not deal with filial consortium, and that considering the overall quantum of compensation already awarded by the trial court, further interference was not required. The cross-objection on this point was therefore not accepted.

Outcome

FMA 1421 of 2024 along with COT 9 of 2025 was dismissed. The judgment and award of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Sadar, Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 261 of 2022 was affirmed. The claimants were directed to be entitled to withdraw the compensation amount, including accrued interest, upon compliance with necessary formalities. In the event the deposit had not been made, the insurer was directed to make the deposit within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order.

FMA 527 of 2025 along with COT 8 of 2025 was disposed of. The judgment and award dated 20 August 2024 in MAC Case No. 262 of 2022 was modified to the extent that the claimant was held entitled to compensation of Rs 11,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the date of the High Court’s order. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. was directed to deposit Rs 11,00,000 along with interest at 6% per annum before the Registrar General of the High Court at Calcutta within 8 weeks from the date of communication of the order. In the event the amount awarded by the trial court had already been deposited, only the balance was required to be deposited. The claimant was entitled to withdraw the compensation including accrued interest upon compliance with necessary formalities.