[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager National Insurance ... vs Umesh Kumar Mahto on 8 December, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:36929
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 285 of 2018
1. Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited Bokaro Division,
Sector-4, City Center, Sheela Sadan, C-27, P.O. & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, Sector-
4, Dist.-Bokaro duly represented through its Deputy Manager, National Insurance
Company Limited, Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, P.O.-G.P.O, P.S.-
Kotwali, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Umesh Kumar Mahto, S/o Sri Salikh Mahto @ Salikh Ram Mahto
2. Salikh Mahto @ Salikh Ram Mahto, S/o Late Sohan Mahto
3. Sushila Devi, W/o Sri Salikh Mahto @ Salikh Ram Mahto, All R/o Village-
Pardih, P.O.-Kaitha, P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh
4. Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Bhagan Singh, R/o Jodhadih More, Chas,
P.O.-Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro
5. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sri Ram Krishna Prasad, R/o Sector 9D, Qtr. 612, Street-
35, P.O.-Sector-9, P.S.-Harla (Sector 9), Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
6. Khela Ram Mahto, S/o Sri Bailu Mahto, R/o Village-Sadma Kala, P.O.-
Pwtarbad, P.S.-Pwtarbar, Dist.-Bokaro
7. Ramesh Mahto, S/o Sri Bablu Mahto, R/o Village-Sadma Kala, P.O.-
Petarbar, P.S.-Petarwar, Dist.-Bokaro ... .... Respondents
With
C. O. No. 23 of 2021
1. Umesh Kumar Mahto, S/o Sri Salikh Mahto @ Salikh Ram Mahto
2. Salikh Mahto @ Salikh Ram Mahto, S/o Late Sohan Mahto
3. Sushila Devi, W/o Salikh Mahto @ Salikh Ram Mahto, All R/o Village-
Pardih, P.O.-Kaitha, P.S.-Ramgarh, Dist.-Ramgarh
.... .... Cross Objectors
Versus
1. National Insurance Company Limited through its Divisional Manager,
Bokaro Division, Sector-4, City Center, Sheela Sadan, C-27, P.O. & P.S.-
Bokaro Steel City, Sector-4, Dist.-Bokaro,
2. Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/o Bhagan Singh, R/o Jodhadih More, Chas, P.O.-
Chas, P.S.-Chas, Dist.-Bokaro
3. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sri Ram Krishna Prasad, R/o Sector 9D, Qtr. 612, Street-
35, P.O.-Sector-9, P.S.-Harla (Sector IX), Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro
4. Khela Ram Mahto, S/o Bailu Mahto, R/o Village-Sadma Kala, P.O.-
Pwtarbad, P.S.-Pwtarbar, Dist.-Bokaro
5. Ramesh Mahto, S/o Bablu Mahto, R/o Village-Sadmakala, P.O.-Petarbar,
P.S.-Petarwar, Dist.-Bokaro & Ors.
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant-Insurance Co. :Mr. Pratyush Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Taru Gupta, Advocate
Mr. Vishwajeetjee Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the Cross Objectors : Mr. S.K. Laik, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos. 6 & 7 : Mr. Nawal Kishore Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Kumar Surya Prakash, Advocate
------
2025:JHHC:36929
13 / Dated : 08.12.2025.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The instant Misc. Appeal and Cross Objection arise from the same judgment
of award and compensation passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 35 of
2016, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.25,91,098/- along
with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application
till its realization has been allowed in favour of the claimants against the
appellant- Insurance Company.
2. The Insurance-Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of
compensation, wherein liability has been solely fixed on it mainly on the
ground that the claimant nos. 3 and 4 are father and mother, whereas claimant
no. 1, who sustained permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident on
26.05 2013 with 90% permanent disability while he was travelling by Tata
Magic bearing registration No. JH 01R-3710 which met with an accident
with a Maruti Swift Dezire Car bearing registration No. JH09L-8178 .
3. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation by recording a finding of fact that
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Maruti
Swift Dezire Car under the following heads: -
Sl. Compensation Head Amount
No.
1. Loss of earnings into multiplier 17 into 40% Rs. 11,39,320/-
as future prospect after adding
2. Transportation Bills Rs. 59,100/-
3. Medical Bills Rs.8,14,548/-
4. Bill on account of payments made to the two Rs. 3,03,250/-
attendants who attended the applicant no. 1
5. Future Prospect @ 10% of the monthly Salary Rs. 2,00,880/-
6. On account of loss of prospects of marriage Rs. 75,000/-
Total Rs. 25,91,098/-
4. The Insurance-Company is in appeal on the ground that it was a case of
composite negligence which was caused by the driver of both the vehicles
in equal measures as it took place due to head on collision.
5. It is argued that the learned Tribunal without considering the factual aspects
of the accident has held the driver of the Maruti Swift Dezire Car solely
liable for the accident and total liability has been fixed on it. An FIR being
Petarbar P.S. Case No. 73/13 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the
2025:JHHC:36929
IPC was lodged against the driver of both the vehicles and after
investigation, charge-sheet (Ext.-6) was submitted.
6. So far as the plea of contributory negligence taken by Insurance-Company
is concerned, it is unsupported by any substantive evidence. It is true that
FIR was lodged against driver of both vehicles, but the Charge-sheet (Ext.-
6) after investigation was filed against the driver of Maruti Swift Dezire Car.
Further, C.W.1 and C.W. 2 who were also travelling in the same vehicle Tata
Magic have attributed the accident to the driver of the Maruti Swift Dezire
Car. Under the circumstance, this plea is unsustainable.
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, so far
as M. A. No. 285 of 2018, preferred by the Insurance Company is concerned,
this Court does not find any merit for the reason that although the FIR was
filed against both the vehicles, but the charge-sheet has been filed against
the driver of the offending vehicle under the insurance cover of appellant
Insurance Company. It is a case of permanent disability and the claimant as
well as the other two witnesses have attributed the accident to rash and
negligent driving by the driver of Swift Dezire. There is no other contrary
evidence.
Under the circumstance, M. A. No. 285 of 2018, preferred by the
Insurance Company, stands dismissed.
Statutory amount deposited by the Appellant- Insurance Company to be
remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants against the final
compensation amount.
8. So far as Cross Objection No. 23 of 2021 is concerned, as per Ext. 2, the
claimant no. 1 suffered paralysis in both hand and legs.
9. The cross-objection has been filed for enhancement of compensation on the
ground that the claimant no. 1 was a para teacher and he suffered a
functional disability of 100%, but the learned Tribunal has assessed the
disability to 90%. It is also contended that he is suffering from paraplegia
on the account of accident as a result throughout of his life he will be
needing an attendant to support him to carry out his day-to-day activity. No
award of compensation has been made under the head of charges of the
attendant. No charges have been paid under the heading of future medical
treatment and the pain and suffering suffered by the claimant no. 1 during
his treatment for more than two years.
2025:JHHC:36929
10. It is further argued that the attendant charges should have been allowed as
per the multiplier system as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2020) 4
SCC 413 (Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand & Ors.) wherein the attendant
charges were allowed for a sum of Rs.21,60,000/- applying a multiplier of
18. However, in the present case, only Rs. 3,03,250/- was allowed as
attendant charges but it is not for the future attendant charges.
11. It is further contended that the future prospect has been allowed at the rate
of 10% which taking the age and occupation of the claimants should be
40%. The claimant was aged 30 years at the time of accident and was
serving as Para-Teacher which was a regular source of income and,
therefore, as per the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, 40%
should have been allowed under the head of future prospect.
12. Considering the fact that the claimant had been reduced to a vegetative state
because of paraplegia Rs. Three Lakh for loss of marriage prospect and Rs.
Five Lakh for future medical treatment was bare minimum which should
have been allowed in view of the judgement passed in Kajal case (supra).
13. It is further contended that by discussing the earlier law with regard to the
compensation to be paid where the multiplier system has been used in cases
of disability under the heads of pain and suffering, Rs. 15 Lakh has been
allowed in Kajal case (supra). However, in the present case, no such
compensation has been allowed.
14. On the point of attendant charges, it is submitted by learned counsel for the
Insurance Company that there was no evidence whatsoever with regard to
expenses incurred or to be incurred under this head. However, learned
Tribunal in para 18.2 of the judgment on assumption taking into rural
background of the claimant and the attendant, allowed Rs. 6,000/- per
month as attendant charges for two attendants. On this basis, final
compensation worked out to be Rs.3,16,500/-. The claim of Rs.6000/- per
month was not accepted, rather the total expense of Rs.3000/- per month on
each of the attendants was accepted and, on its basis, final compensation of
Rs.3,03,250/- for the attendant was assessed from July, 2013 to the date of
institution of the suit i.e. 13.04.2016.
15. Having considered the submissions advanced and on perusal of the
materials on record, it is apparent that the claimant suffered quadriplegia
2025:JHHC:36929
meaning thereby, paralysis of both arms and both legs was as a result of
accident and the witnesses have deposed that the claimant is still bedridden.
16. Taking his occupation, it has been rightly contended on behalf of the
appellant that the paralysis of full body amounted to 100% functional
disability. It has also rightly been contended that considering the age of 30
year, multiplier of 17 and future prospect of 40% should have been taken to
assess the compensation. Taking the law as laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kajal case (supra), the claimants are entitled to the
following compensation:
Sl. No. Compensation Head Amount
1. Loss of earnings into multiplier 17 into 40% Rs. 17,70,720/-
as future prospect after adding
2. Transportation Bills Rs. 59,100/-
3. Medical Bills Rs.8,14,548/-
4. Loss of prospect of marriage Rs.3,00,000/-
5. Future Medical treatment Rs.5,00,000/-
6. Pain and suffering Rs.15,00,000/-
7. Attendant Charges Rs.15,00,000/-
Total Rs.64,44,368/-
17. The Insurance company is directed to pay total compensation of
Rs.64,44,368/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of
claim application. Payment shall be made within one month from the date
of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to
the claimant on proper identification.
C. O. No. 23 of 2021 is allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands
disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Pawan
Uploaded
11.12.2025
