Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Puja Devi on 26 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 676 of 2017
Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance
Company Ltd, Ist Floor, Kamani Centre, Bistupur,
P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur. District East
Singhbhum, Jharkhand, Insurer of the offending
vehicle bearing registration No.JH-05A-
9598/M/13, represented through its Dy. Manager
and Incharge T.P. Hub, The New India Assurance
Company Ltd., Ranchi Division, Sethi Corporate,
2nd Floor, P.P. Compound P.O. and P.S. Hindpiri,
District Ranchi, Jharkhand.
..... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Puja Devi, aged about 25 years, wife of Late
Rajesh Kumar Sah, by faith Hindu, by occupation
Household affairs;
2. Anuska Kumari, aged about 3 years (minor)
D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Sah, applicant No.2 is
minor, represented through her mother and natural
guardian applicant No.1/respondent No.1,
Both are resident of H.No.16, Patel Nagar,
Road No.1, Chhota Gobindpur, P.O. and P.S.
Gobindpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
3. Divisional Manager, M/s Tata Motors Company
Limited of Telco Colony, Telco, P.O. and P.S.
Telco, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East,
Jharkhand, owner of the offending vehicle bearing
Registration No.JH-05A-9598/M/13.
4. Badam Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of
Udeshwar Prasad Sah, mother of the deceased
Rajesh Kumar Sah,
5. Udeshwar Prasad Sah, aged about 70 years, son
of Late Lalji Sah, father of the deceased Rajesh
Kumar Sah,
-1-
Both are resident of Qtr. No.240/2/2,
Gobindpur Housing Colony, Chota Gobindpur,
P.O. and P.S. Gobindpur, Jamshedpur, District
East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. Proforma Defendant
No.3/respondent No.4 is mother of the deceased
and Proforma Defendant No.4/Respondent No.5
is father of the deceased and they are also
necessary parties to the case.
..... ... Respondents
with
C.O. No. 07 of 2020
1. Puja Devi (Female aged about 31 years) wife of
late Rajesh Kumar Sah
2. Anushka Kumari (Female Aged about 09 years)
daughter of Late Rajesh Kumar Sah
The cross objector No. 2 is at present minor
as such she is being represented through her
mother and natural guardian i.e. the cross objector
no. 1 here in (Puja Devi);
All residents of House no. 16, Patel Nagar,
Road no. 1 Chhota Govindpur, Post and P.S.
Govindpur, Town-Jamshedpur, District East
Singhbhum.
..... ... Cross Objectors
Versus
1. Divisional Manager, M/S Tata Motors
Company Limited Telco Colony, Telco, Post and
P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand).
2. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance
Company Limited, 1st Floor, Kamani Centre,
Bistupur, Post and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur,
District - East Singhbhum.
3. Badam Devi wife of Udeshwar Prasad Sah and
mother of Late Rajesh Kumar Sah
-2-
4. Udeshwar Prasad Sah son of late Lalji Sah And
father of late Rajesh Kumar Sah
Both residing at Qr. No. 240/2-2, Govindpur
Housing Colony, Chhota Govindpur, Post and P.S.
Govindpur, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate. (in M.A. No. 676 of 2017)
For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate. (in C.O. No. 07 of 2020)
For the Resp. Nos. 1,2, 4 & 5: Mr. A.K. Lall, Advocate. (in M.A. No. 676 of 2017)
For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Lall, Advocate. (in C.O. No. 07 of 2020)
& Resp. No. 1 : Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate (in both the cases)
------
11/ 26.03.2025 Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for respondent No. 2 in C.O.
No. 07 of 2020, Mr. A.K. Lall, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for the
cross objectors in C.O. No. 07 of 2020 and Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned
counsel appearing for M/s Tata Motors Company Limited in both the
cases.
2. M.A. No. 676 of 2017 has been filed by the insurance
company for setting aside the judgment / award dated 30.05.2017,
passed in Compensation Case No. 199 of 2014, by the learned
District Judge-III, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal
(M.A.C.T.), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur.
3. C.O. No. 07 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants,
arising out of the same judgment / award for enhancement of the
awarded amount.
4. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for respondent No. 2 in C.O. No. 07 of
2020 submits that M.A. No. 676 of 2017 has been filed on the
ground that the deduction of 1/4th amount for the personal expenses
and awarding the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on conventional head in
place of Rs. 70,000/- is not in accordance with law.
5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for the
cross objectors in C.O. No. 07 of 2020 submits that in spite of the
proof of income, which has been marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/1, the
learned court has not awarded the amount on the future prospect, in
light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi &
Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that so far
as conventional head is concerned, in every three years, 10% is
required to be added in the conventional head.
6. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court
has gone through the materials available on record. It transpires from
the judgment / award dated 30.05.2017 that Golmuri P.S. Case
No.148 of 2013, dated 21.6.2013 was registered against the driver of
Chesis No. JH-05A-9598, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of
IPC. It was further stated that on 21.6.2013 at about 11:30 AM,
deceased Rajesh Kumar Sah was going from his home Govindpur to
Sakchi by Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-05N-8740 and
reached near G.T. Hostel met with a motor vehicular accident due to
rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Chasis) bearing
Regd. No. JH-05A-9598/M/13 by its driver. The said Chasis bearing
no. JH-05/9598/M/13 was coming from same direction, behind the
deceased rashly and negligently with high speed and due to that said
chasis driver lost his control over the Chasis and hit the deceased
motorcycle from his back side, due to that accident Rajesh Kumar
Sah had sustained grievous injuries and he fell down on the road and
with the help of local people of the same locality have taken him to
T.M.H., Bistupur hospital for his treatment, but the doctors declared
him dead. In these backgrounds, the claim case was filed and the
learned tribunal has decided the same and directed to pay a sum of
Rs. 21,15,000/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim case till the actual payment within thirty
days. It was further ordered that if the amount has already been paid
to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act as ad-
interim compensation, that should be deducted from the
aforementioned awarded amount.
7. So far as the argument of Mr. Jha, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 with regard to
deduction of 1/4th is concerned, this court finds that the learned
tribunal found that five persons are dependents upon the deceased, in
view of that the learned tribunal has deducted the 1/4th from the
income. Further the contention of Mr. Jha is that the father of the
deceased was not dependent, however, it was not proved by the
insurance company before the learned tribunal, in view of his such
submission, the onus lies upon the insurance company to prove that
fact, as such, the argument of Mr. Jha is not being accepted by this
court. So far as conventional head is concerned, this court finds that
the learned tribunal has directed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- for loss
of consortium to widow, Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expense and Rs.
80,000/- for loss of estate, love and affection.
8. It appears that the award on the part of conventional head
is not in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and it should be Rs. 70,000/-,
however, 10% can be added further after every three years, that is the
direction in that case. In view of that that part of the award is
modified to the effect that the conventional head should be Rs.
70,000/- plus 10% has to be added in every three years and that will
be added till the satisfying the award. Accordingly, this amount will
be recalculated by the learned tribunal.
9. So far as the argument of Mr. Lall, learned counsel of
adding 40% on the future prospect is concerned, this court finds
force in the said submission in light of the discussions made in the
award, as in the income tax return, which was marked as Exhibits-4
and 4/1, the learned court has found that the deceased earning was
Rs. 1,72,000/- per annum, which clearly suggests that the deceased
was earning and in light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra),
claimants are entitled for 40% of future prospect. In view of that the
award is further modified to that effect and it will be calculated on
40% on the future prospect, in light of the award.
10. It has been pointed out that the amount in question has
already been deposited before the learned court, in view of that if the
amount is not paid, the same will be disbursed taking into account
the modified award in view of this order and if the amount is
disbursed in favour of the claimants, in view of the modification, it
shall be recalculated to the effect on the point of conventional head
and adding of future prospect and the 40% future prospect shall also
carry interest @ 6% per annum, in light of the award from the date of
filing of the claim application.
11. The statutory amount deposited before this court shall be
transmitted back to the learned tribunal, which will be utilized in
satisfying the award and if any excess amount will be found, that will
be paid to the insurance company.
12. In view of the above, the aforesaid appeal and cross
objection are allowed in part and disposed of in view of the above
terms.
13. Let the trial court records be sent back to the learned
tribunal.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
