Jharkhand High Court
Divisional Manager vs Pushpa Thakur on 18 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:34406
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 386 of 2023
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Sachindra Sadan, S.N.
Ganguly Road, P.S.-Kotwali, P.O.-G.P.O., Dist.-Ranchi, through Asst.
Manager, having its office at Kutchery Road, P.S.-Kotwali,
P.O. & Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Pushpa Thakur, W/o Late Satya Narayan Thakur
2. Suhani D/o Late Satya Narayan Thakur
3. Shaurya Narayan S/o Late Satya Narayan Thakur, All permanent R/o Flat
No. 18B/2, 3rd Floor, Ward No.1 Mehrauli Near Arya Samaj Mandir, P.O. &
P.S.-Mehrauli, Dist.-South Delhi, New Delhi. At present residing at Flat No.
1F, Shoumya Apartment, Singh More, P.O.-Jagarnathpur, P.S.-Jagarnathpur,
Dist.-Ranchi
4. Satish Kumar, S/o Shiv Narayan Sahu, R/o Village-Hethu, P.O.-Hudru,
P.S. & Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Respondents
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For Respondent 1 to 3 : Mr. Ajay Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Satyendra Kr. Singh, Advocate
Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent 4 : Mr. Sunil Kr. Upadhayay, Advocate
-----
Oral Order
08 / Dated : 18.11.2025
1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award
of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V. Act in Motor Accident
Claim Case No. 31/2020, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of
Rs. 86,87,009/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants.
2. As per the case of the claimants, deceased Satya Narayan Thakur died
in a motor vehicle accident on 26.04.2019 regarding which
Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 180/2019 was registered on 28.04.2019
under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC against an unknown vehicle.
After investigation, the identity of the motorcycle, involved in the
accident, was fixed and the charge sheet (Ext.2) was filed against
Satish Kumar who was the driver-cum-owner of the motorcycle
bearing Registration No. JH-01BF-8413. The deceased was 56 year
old at the time of accident and was having a salary of Rs.1,05,288/-, as
he was serving as Manager of Radisson Blu Hotel at Ranchi.
3. The Tribunal framed the following issues :
2025:JHHC:34406
(i) Whether the claim application as filed is maintainable?
(ii) Whether applicants have valid cause of action for the case?
(iii) Whether death of the accident victim namely Satya Narayan
Thakur resulted due to vehicular accident dated 26.04.2019 by
use of Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-01BF-8413?
(iv) Whether the insured/owner of the alleged offending vehicle
Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-01BF-8413 has
violated any of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy?
(v) Whether applicants are entitled for compensation as claimed if
yes, against whom and what extent?
(vi) To what relief or reliefs, if any, the applicants are entitled for?
4. The findings were recorded in favour of the claimants and a
compensation has been awarded which is under challenge in the instant
appeal.
5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that a
hit and run case has been converted into a case with a claim under
Section 166 of the M.V. Act. There is no eye witness to the accident
and as per the FIR, the deceased was knocked down by a speeding
black colour motorcycle.
6. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is submitted that learned
Tribunal erred in taking the gross salary of the deceased for assessing
the monthly income without deducing the income tax. TDS that was
applicable every month was Rs.10,000/-, however, it should have been
Rs.12,000/- per month as per the TDS form which has been filed.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants has defended the impugned order.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it
is difficult to be persuaded by the argument that the offending vehicle
in the present case was not involved in the accident, as the FIR was
drawn against an unknown vehicle. On perusal of the charge-sheet
(Ext.2), it is evident that the motor vehicle bearing Registration No.
JH-01BF-8413 was involved in the accident. PW 3 has also deposed in
para-10 and has also claimed to have seen the number of the motor
cycle which was involved in the accident.
2025:JHHC:34406
9. In this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the finding made by
the Tribunal regarding involvement of the said motor cycle in the
accident so as to warrant any interference on that count.
10. The main grievance of the Insurance Company is that the interest has
been levied on the compensation awarded under the head of future
prospects. Reliance is placed on the following authorities.
i. Mac Appeal No. 223 of 2010 of Gauhati High Court
ii. Mac App No. 33/2022 of High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and
Ladakh (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mst. Aisha
Bano & Ors.), wherein it has been held that interest cannot be
levied on compensation to be awarded under the heading of
future prospects.
iii. Miscl. First Appeal No. 202302/2023 and analogous cases of
Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi Bench).
11. The interest component on the compensation relates back to the date of
filing of the claim petition and continues until the amount is actually
disbursed. Compensation awarded towards loss of future income
represents the deprivation suffered by the dependants due to the death
of the earning member. In a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act,
this loss is computed by applying the multiplier method. In essence,
the assessment rests on the income the deceased would have
contributed to the family had his life not been abruptly cut short. The
applicable multiplier is determined with reference to the age of the
deceased, and the resulting figure represents the projected future loss
of income to the claimants. Thus, compensation under this head is
fundamentally an assessment of future loss.
12. The component of 'future prospects' is intended to account for the
likely increase in the income of the deceased, which the dependants are
deprived of due to the accidental death. This head of compensation is
inherently forward-looking, as they account for future loss, for which a
lump-sum amount is awarded.
13. Thus, there is merit in the contention that interest cannot be granted on
the anticipated future increase in income (future prospect), particularly
when the compensation towards this component is already been paid in
2025:JHHC:34406
a lump sum. This court is in agreement with the principal of law as
stated by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh in Mst.
Aisha Banu and others (supra).
14. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount, as
awarded by the learned Tribunal, excluding the interest portion
awarded on the compensation under the heading of 'future prospect'.
The instant Misc. Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. Pending, I.A.
if any, stands disposed of.
Let the statutory amount, already paid by the appellant-Insurance
Company, be returned to the Insurance Company.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
AKT/Satendra
Uploaded
19.11.2025
