Jharkhand High Court
Sikandar Kumar Das Age 29 Years vs Rajesh Singh Son Of Nityatand Singh R/O ... on 19 November, 2025
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
2025:JHHC:34563
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 138 of 2021
1. Sikandar Kumar Das Age 29 years
2. Vikash Das Age 12 years
Both S/O Late Bhim Lal Das
3. Asha Devi @ Gudiya Devi Age 48 years (Married daughter) D/O Late Bhim
Lal Das
4. Fuliya Devi Age 28 years (Married daughter) D/O Late Bhim Lal Das
5. Arti Devi Age 22 years (Married daughter) D/O Late Bhim Lal Das
(Claimant No 2 is minor and represented under the natural guardian of his
brother claimant No 1)
All Resident of -Village and Post office Budhiyadih Tolla Chhatartand and P.S
Giridih (M), District-Giridih
.... .... Appellants
Versus
1. Rajesh Singh Son of Nityatand Singh R/O 137 Ranchi Road, Hazaribagh P.O
and P.S Hazaribagh Sadar District Hazaribagh (owner of the Truck No. NL-
01G-6414) 25D-1568)
2.Gulam Hussain S/O Late Mojim Mian R/O Dardi Kola, PO and PS- Barka
Gawan District- Hazaribagh (Driver of the Truck No. NL-O1G-6414) 25D-
1568)
3.Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd, Giridih Branch, 1st Floor
of Axis Bank Building Giridih, P.O., P.S., and District Giridih (Insurer of N L-
01G-6414) 25D-1568)
... .... Respondents
With
M. A. No. 423 of 2019
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Giridih Branch, 1" Floor, of
AXIS Bank Building, Girdih P.O. P.S. & District- Giridih Represented though
Asst. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd having its office at Kutchery Road,
P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District- Ranchi
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. Sikandar Kumar Das son of Late Bhim Lal Das
2. Vikash Das son of Late Bhim Lal Das
3. Asha Devi @ Gudiya Devi Married Daughter of Late Bhim Lal Das
4. Fuliya Devi Married Daughter of Late Bhim Lal Das
5. Arti Devi Married Daughter of Late Bhim Lal Das
(Respondent No. 2 is Minor is represented through his bother Respondent No-1
being natural guardian as his next friend)
All residing at Village & P.O. Budhiyadih, Tola, Chhatatatand, P.S. Giridih (M)
District-Giridih.
6. Rajesh Singh son of Nityanand Singh, residing at 137, Ranchi Road,
Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh Sadar, District- Hazaribagh. (Owner)
7. Gulam Hussain son of Late Mojim Mian, Resident of Dardi Kola, P.O. &
P.S. Barka Gawan, District- Hazaribagh. (Driver)
... .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
1
2025:JHHC:34563
In M.A. No. 138 of 2021
For the Appellants :Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
In M.A. No. 423 of 2019
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr. Santosh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Prabhash Ch. Sinha, Advocate
------
Order No. 12 / Dated : 19.11.2025.
1. Both these appeals arise of the judgment and award of compensation passed
by the learned District Judge-II-cum-MACT, Giridih in Motor Accident
Claim Case No. 51/2015, whereby and whereunder, Section 166 of the M.V.
Act. a compensation of Rs.28,43,265/- with interest @ 9% per annum has
been awarded in favour of the claimants. The Insurance-Company is in
appeal against the liability being fixed on it and as well as the quantum of
compensation awarded, whereas the claimants have preferred the appeal for
enhancement of compensation.
2. As per the case of the claimants, on 12.01.2015 at about 2 p.m. deceased-
Savitri Devi, who was going on a motorcycle bearing registration no. JH-
11D-5849, met with an accident caused by rash and negligent driving by the
driver of the truck bearing registration no.NL-01G-6414. The deceased
sustained fatal injuries and died on spot regarding which a case was
registered being Giridih (T) P.S. Case No. 10/2015 under Sections 279, 337,
338 and 304(A) of the IPC against the driver of the offending truck.
3. The award of compensation in the instant case is under challenge on the
ground that the driver of the offending truck was not having a valid and
effective driving licence at the time of accident.
4. It is argued on behalf of the Insurance-Company that it is a case of
contributory negligence, as the deceased was travelling on the motorcycle
with three persons. It is further argued that the owner and driver had
appeared before the learned Tribunal, but the driving licence has not brought
on record which will amount to breach of fundamental terms and conditions
of the insurance policy in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC
208.
5. It is further contended that in the FIR there is specific averment that when
2025:JHHC:34563
the accident took place, three persons were riding on the motorcycle and this
made out a case of contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the
motorcycle. This has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. Reliance
in this regard is placed on 2009 (2) JCR 287, Manish Narayan Vs. Seem
Bouri & Ors., wherein it has been held that there was no evidence that, the
driver, who was driving the vehicle, had valid driving licence and that too
with two pillion riders which was not permissible in law and therefore, it
was a case of contributory negligence. Ratio of this case has been followed
by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.A. No. 377 of 2019 at para 14.
6. On the quantum part, it is argued that there is no dispute whatsoever that the
deceased was a government servant and was getting Rs. 13,000/- per month
as salary. However, the learned Tribunal by adding the pension, loss of
monthly income has assessed to be Rs. 17,175/-.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that there is
error in computation of the monthly income of the deceased, as she was
drawing Rs. 16,922/- at the time of accident. The submission as made cannot
be accepted for the reason that Exhibit-4 has been proved on behalf of the
claimants where the monthly income has been stated to be Rs. 13,675/-.
Therefore, any claim of income beyond this is not tenable.
8. It is also argued that the deceased apart from her salary was also drawing
pension of her husband, who had died in harnesss, and after her death, the
claimants were deprived of family pension and consequently, loss of Rs.
7000/- per month which was earlier being received. Family pension is a
statutory grant to the spouse of the deceased and on her death, the family
pension comes to an end.
FINDING
9. It is rather surprising that how the pension has also been added in the
monthly income. There cannot be claim under both heads i.e. salary and
pension. If the person, who is in service, suffers an accident, his monthly
income is to be assessed as per his salary slip and only after his retirement,
pension can be factored. Pension that was accruing to the mother of the
claimants after her death, cannot be added, as she was given compassionate
appointment and was drawing salary.
10. Here, learned Tribunal has erred in adding pension to assess the monthly
income.
2025:JHHC:34563
11. Taking Exhibit-4 adduced on behalf of the claimants, the monthly income of
the deceased is Rs.13,675/-.
12. Learned counsel on behalf of the owner does not appear.
13. However, since driving licence has not been brought on record, either by the
owner or the driver, therefore, there is a breach of terms of insurance policy
in terms of Section 149 of the M.V. Act and the Insurance-Company will
have a right to recovery.
14. With regard to the claim that there were two pillion riders when the accident
took place, eye witnesses A.W.-2 and A.W.-3 on the contrary have stated that
Savitri Devi was the only pillion rider at the time of accident and no cross-
examination has been made on this point. FIR is not a substantive piece of
evidence and in absence of any contrary evidence, the plea that at the time
of accident there were two pillion riders, cannot be accepted.
15. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the claimants shall be entitled
to compensation as under: -
Rs. 13,675/- as monthly income, deceased was aged 40 years, as witnesses
have stated and there has not been any cross-examination in this point.
Annual Income = Rs.13675/- X 12 Rs.1,64,100/-
Future Prospect Rs. 1,64,100/- Rs.65,640/-
X 40%
After adding annual income and Rs. 1,64,100+Rs.
future prospect 65,640=Rs.2,29,740/-
Deduction of 50% personal and Rs. 1,14,870/-
living expense
Multiplier of 15 taking the age of Rs. 17,23,050 /-
the deceased to be 40
Conventional Head Rs.77,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 19,14,920/-
16.Under the circumstance, the Insurance Company is directed to make
payment of Rs. 19,14,920/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing
of the claim application, within a month of the order, which shall be
disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal on terms fixed by it. For the
reasons as discussed in M.A. No. 386 of 2023, the interest will not be
admissible on the compensation awarded under the heading of "future
prospect".
2025:JHHC:34563
Both the Miscellaneous Appeals stand disposed of.
Statutory amount be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the
claimants. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pawan/ -
Uploaded
20.11.2025
