[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Rakesh Kumar Ranjan vs Pappu Mandal on 28 November, 2025
2025:JHHC:35706
IN HIGH COURT of JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 108 of 2016
...............
1. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Son of Sri Jai Narayan Sah (husband
of the deceased),
2. Harshit Kumar,
3. Prakriti Gunjan,
Petitioner No.2 is minor son and petitioner no.3 is a minor
daughter of the deceased represented through their legal
guardian and father Rakesh Kumar Ranjan (Petitioner No.1),
All residents of village- Rajendra Nagar (Hatia Chowk), P.O. &
P.S. Godda (T), District- Godda. ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Pappu Mandal, Son of Naresh Mandal (owner of the offending
Tractor), Resident of village- Bhatdiha, P.S. & P.O. Godda (T),
District-Godda.
2. Laxman Sah, Son of Kaleshwar Sah (driver of the offending
Tractor), Resident of Sarkanda, P.O. & P.S. Godda (T),
District-Godda.
3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Branch Office,
Godda, P.O. & P.S. Godda (T), District- Godda (Insurer of the
offending tractor). ... ... Claimants/respondents
With
M.A. No. 257 of 2016
The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office Godda,
P.O. and P.S. Godda, District Godda (Insurer of the offending
Tractor) represented through its Sr. Divisional Manager, The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Ranchi D.O.-I, Tiwary Enclave,
Circular Road, Lalpur, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi.
... ... Opposite Party No.3/Appellant
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, S/o Sri Jai Narayan Sah (Husband of
the deceased)
2. Harshit Kumar S/o Rakesh Kumar Ranjan
3. Prakriti Gunjan D/o Rakesh Kumar Ranjan
Petitioner No.2 is minor son and Petitioner No.3 is minor
daughter of the deceased, represented through their legal
guardian and father Rakesh Kumar Ranjan,
Petitioner/Respondent No.1
1
2025:JHHC:35706
All are resident of Rajendra Nagar (Hatia Chowk), P.O. Godda,
P.S. Godda (T), District Godda.
... ... Respondents
4. Pappu Mandal, son of Naresh Mandal, resident of Bhatdiha,
P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda Nagar, District Godda (Owner of the
offending Tractor). ... ... Opp Party no.1/Respondent
5. Lakshman Sah, son of Kaleshwar Sah, resident of Sarkanda,
P.O. Godda, P.S. Godda Nagar, District Godda (Driver of the
offending Tractor). .... Opposite Party No.2/Respondent
---------
For the Appellants : Mrs. Rajni Singh, Advocate
[In M.A. No. 108 of 2016]
For the Insurance Co.: Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
[In M.A. No. 257 of 2016]
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
[In M.A. No. 108 of 2016]
For the Resp. No.1 : Mrs. Rajni Singh, Advocate
[in M.A. No. 257 of 2016]
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 01.08.2025 Pronounced on 28 .11.2025
1. M.A. No. -108 of 2016 has been preferred by the
Claimants and M.A. No. -257 of 2016 has been preferred by
the Insurance Company.
2. Since, both the Miscellaneous Appeals emanate from a
common impugned award, thus both the appeals were heard
together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Both the Miscellaneous Appeals are directed against the
award dated 30.11.2015 passed by District Judge-IV-cum-
M.A.C.T, Godda (hereinafter referred to as the learned
Tribunal) in M.A.C.T no. 24/2012 / 01/2015, wherein the
learned Tribunal has awarded amount to the tune of Rs.
2025:JHHC:35706
3,62,750/- with simple interest @ 6 % per annum to the
claimants from the date of filing of claim petition till its
realization, within a period of 90 days from the date of award.
4. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.02.2012 the
deceased, namely, Baby Kumari who being a Para Teacher
while on way to her school at Bariyarpur, as a pillion rider on
the Motor Cycle having no. JH 06E 3187 which was being
driven by her colleague namely, Rajesh Kumar, was dashed by
a sand laden tractor coming from opposite side having Engine
no.- NGNL 1737 and Chasis no.- NGNL 1737 in a rash and
negligent manner, near small bridge at village Pathra. Owing
to the aforesaid impact caused by dash of the offending
tractor, rider as well as pillion rider of the said Motorcycle fell
down and Baby Kumari (since deceased) came under the wheel
of offending tractor and died on the spot.
5. An FIR being Godda Nagar P.S. Case No. 57 of 2012
dated 09.02.2012 has been got registered on the fardbeyan of
Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, husband of the deceased under
Sections 279/337/338/304-A of I.P.C. Thereafter, due
investigation was done and charge sheet has been submitted
against the driver of offending tractor, namely Lakshman Sah.
Thereafter husband of the deceased filed an application under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short M.V. Act).
6. The owner and driver of the offending Tractor and
Insurance Company were made opposite parties in the said
application. The owner and driver of the offending Tractor
appeared and filed joint written statement denying the rash
and negligent driving of the offending Tractor and further
stated that accident happened on account of construction of
half width of the road. Insurance Company also appeared and
2025:JHHC:35706
filed written statement denying the claims in the claim
application.
7. During enquiry before the Tribunal two witnesses on
behalf of claimants got examined. They are C.W. 1 (Jay
Narayan Sah) and C.W. 2 (Rakesh kumar Ranjan) who
reiterated the fact that on account of rash and negligent
driving of the driver of the offending tractor, it dashed the
motorcycle and the deceased got crushed and died on the spot.
Claimants further brought on record following documents :-
Exhibit 1:- Certificate issued by Block Education Extension
Officer Sunderpahari dated 25.02.2012(with objection).
Exhibit 2:- Approved list of Para teachers of Sunderpahari
Block issued by Block Education Extension Officer
Sunderpahari dated 19.12.2011.
Exhibit 3:-Certified copy of FIR of Godda Nagar P.S. Case
No. 57/12.
Exhibit 4:- Certified copy of Charge-sheet filed by the Police
in connection with Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 57/12.
Exhibit-5:- Postmortem Certificate of Baby Kumari.
Exhibit-6:- Passbook of S.B. A/c of Baby Kumari (deceased).
8. The owner of the offending Tractor got examined one
witness namely Lakshman Sah who happens to be the driver
of the tractor and no documents have been adduced.
Insurance Company got examined one witness namely Binay
Kumar Ambastha who is investigator of the Insurance
Company and has brought on record investigation report as
Exhibit -A.
9. Learned Tribunal after analyzing and evaluating the
materials available on record passed the impugned award
dated 30.11.2015 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded
amount to the tune of Rs. 3, 62,750/- with simple interest
2025:JHHC:35706
@ 6 % per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of
claim petition till its realization, within a period of 90 days
from the date of award.
10. M.A. No. 108 of 2016 has been preferred by the
claimants against the above said impugned award dated
30.11.2015 precisely on two grounds. First that there is no
composite negligence on the part of the deceased and, as such,
deduction of 50% made while computing the compensation
has wrongly been taken by the learned Tribunal.
11. Secondly, enhancement of quantum of compensation, as
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in
consonance with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay
Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as loss of income under
the head of Future Prospect has not been considered and
further under the conventional head, only Rs. 2000/- has
been awarded.
12. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the
claimants/ appellants that the learned Tribunal has not
considered the multiplier which ought to be 16 as the
deceased was 34 years of age at the time of accident, in terms
of ratio in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009)
6 SCC 121. He also emphasized that rate of interest should
also be more than what was given by the learned Tribunal
which ought to be 7.5%.
13. Learned counsel for Insurance Company submitted that
it is a case where offending Tractor was insured with the
Insurance Company only by mentioning its engine number
and chasis number at the time of accident was not registered
with the Transport Authority. He drew the attention of this
Court to the order dated 21.03.2022 passed by this Court
2025:JHHC:35706
wherein additional issue has been framed on the question of
registration of the offending tractor at the time of accident and
direction was given to the learned Tribunal to decide the said
additional issue. It is further submitted that the learned
Tribunal decided the above additional issue by holding that
the offending Tractor was not registered at the time of incident
and upon this premise the Insurance Company contended that
it amounts to the violation of terms and conditions of the
insurance policy and Insurance Company may be granted
Right to recovery.
14. As far as quantum is concerned, learned counsel for
Insurance Company submitted that a suitable order may be
passed in the light of Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi(supra).
15. After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at
length and perusing the record of Tribunal, first of all, this
Court would like to examine whether in the present case there
is composite negligence on the part of the deceased or not.
16. It is apposite to refer herein the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Khenyei v. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2015) 9 SCC 273 wherein
the Apex Court has reiterated the legal proposition laid in the
case of T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan reported in (2008) 3 SCC
748, whereby the Apex Court has held and explained the
composite negligence and how it is different from Contributory
negligence. Relevant paragraphs of the above judgment read
here under :-
15. There is a difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the
case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the
accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the
accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite
negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident but due
to the outcome of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. This
Court in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan (2008) 3 SCC 748 has held that in case of
contributory negligence, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility
of each wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the
2025:JHHC:35706
extent of liability of each wrongdoer separately. It is only in the case of
contributory negligence that the injured himself has contributed by his negligence
in the accident. Extent of his negligence is required to be determined as damages
recoverable by him in respect of the injuries have to be reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder : (SCC pp.
750-51, Paras 6-7)
"6. 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more
persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or
more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the
composite negligence of those wrongdoers. [In such a case, each wrongdoer, is
jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and
the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them]. In such
a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each
wrongdoer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of
liability of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers
injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and
partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence on the part of the
injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory
negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages
is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages
recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his
contributory negligence.
The decision in T.O. Anthony v. Karvarnan [(2008) 3 SCC 748 : (2008) 1 SCC
(Civ) 832 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 738] has been relied upon in A.P. SRTC v. K.
Hemlatha [(2008) 6 SCC 767 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 34] .
17. From the above legal proposition, it is clear that
Composite negligence refers to the negligence during accident
on account of two or more wrongdoers/vehicles resulting into
the injury of a third person. In other words, injury sustained
to a person as a result of composite negligence due to two or
more wrongdoers/vehicles.
18. Coming to the case in hand, at Para-13 of written
statement, Insurance Company has contended that "it is a
case of contributory negligence on the part of the owner/driver
of the Motorcycle and owner of the Tractor under reference
who are equally responsible and liable for accident and
compensation". However, instead of plea of contributory
negligence Tribunal framed Issue no. (ii) to adjudicate the
issue of composite negligence due to which accident took
place. Tribunal while deciding Issue no. (ii), arrived at the
finding that both the vehicles collided from the front side and
direct collision of the vehicles caused due to the stone and
boulders stored therein for the construction of the said road.
2025:JHHC:35706
19. It is further required to refer herein the judgment of
Hon'ble supreme Court rendered in the case of Pawan Kumar
v. Harkishan Dass Mohan Lal reported in (2014) 3 SCC 590
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized the distinction
between the of composite and contributory negligence. For
ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are
quoted hereunder: -
7. The distinction between the principles of composite and contributory negligence has
been dealt with in Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (Chapter 21) (15th Edn. 1998). It would
be appropriate to notice the following passage from the said work:
"Where two or more people by their independent breaches of duty to the plaintiff cause
him to suffer distinct injuries, no special rules are required, for each tortfeasor is liable
for the damage which he caused and only for that damage. Where, however, two or more
breaches of duty by different persons cause the plaintiff to suffer a single injury the
position is more complicated. The law in such a case is that the plaintiff is entitled to sue
all or any of them for the full amount of his loss, and each is said to be jointly and
severally liable for it. This means that special rules are necessary to deal with the
possibilities of successive actions in respect of that loss and of claims for contribution or
indemnity by one tortfeasor against the others. It is greatly to the plaintiff's advantage to
show that he has suffered the same, indivisible harm at the hands of a number of
defendants for he thereby avoids the risk, inherent in cases where there are different
injuries, of finding that one defendant is insolvent (or uninsured) and being unable to
execute judgment against him. The same picture is not, of course, so attractive from the
point of view of the solvent defendant, who may end up carrying full responsibility for a
loss in the causing of which he played only a partial, even secondary role.
The question of whether there is one injury can be a difficult one. The simplest case is
that of two virtually simultaneous acts of negligence, as where two drivers behave
negligently and collide, injuring a passenger in one of the cars or a pedestrian, but there
is no requirement that the acts be simultaneous...."
20. Considering the above legal proposition and discussion
made herein above, this Court does not find any infirmity in
the finding of the Tribunal that it is a case of composite
negligence in view of ocular evidence and other materials
available on record. Therefore, finding of learned Tribunal that
50% deduction made in the impugned award is not tenable
and is hereby set aside.
21. For proper adjudication of plea of the Insurance
Company claiming right to recovery of the amount of
compensation from the owner of the offending Tractor on
account of breach of terms and conditions, this Court vide
2025:JHHC:35706
order dated 21.03.2022 framed additional issue and directed
the Tribunal to record finding after recording evidence. The
said additional issue is reproduced hereunder:-
Whether the tractor in question bearing Engine
No. NGNL 1737 and Chasis No. NGNL 1737 was
duly registered with the transport authority on the
date and time of the accident or not? If yes, then
what is its registration number.
22. As far as Right to recovery is concerned, it transpires
from the Letter no.- 312 dated 01.12.2023 by the District
Judge-I-cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Godda that
offending Tractor having Engine no.- NGNL 1737 and Chasis
No.- NGNL 1737 was not registered with the Transport
Authority at the time of accident and got registered with
Transport Authority on 21.04.2012. Therefore, it is clear from
the above document that accident took place on 09.02.2012
and offending tractor got registered with the Transport
Authority on 21.04.2012, more than two months after the date
of accident. Non-registration of offending Tractor with the
Transport Authority at the time of accident amounts to the
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and,
as such, Insurance Company is entitled for Right to
recovery.
23. As far as enhancement of quantum is concerned, this
Court considering Rs. 6,000/- as the monthly income of the
deceased as she was working as Para Teacher and deceased
was aged about 34 years as per P.M report, thus, 16 as
multiplier as per Sarla Verma (supra), addition of 40% as
future prospect as deceased being Para Teacher which is
generally appointed on contractual basis having fixed salary
and Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head as per Pranay
2025:JHHC:35706
Sethi (Supra), the final compensation amount will work out as
under :-
Monthly Income Rs. 6,000/-
Personal & Living Expenses (Deduction) Rs. 6000×1/3rd =
(Sarla Verma) Rs.2000/-
Rs 6000- 2000 = Rs
Rs. 4,000×12 =
Annual Income Rs. 48,000/-
Multiplier of 16 (34 years as the age of Rs. 48,000×16=
the deceased at the time of the Rs. 7,68,000/-
accident) (Sarla Verma)
Future Prospect(Deceased having fixed Rs. 7,68,000×40%=
salary and below 40 yrs) - 40% Rs. 3,07,200/-
Pranay Sethi (Supra)
Rs.7,68,000+
Total amount 3,07,200=
Rs. 10,75,200/-
Conventional Head (Loss of Estate,
Funeral Expenses and Loss of Rs. 70,000/-
Consortium) Pranay Sethi (Supra)
Rs.10,75,200+
Total Compensation Rs.70,000 =
Rs. 11,45,200/-
24. As far as, interest part is concerned, this Court taking
the legal proposition of the judgment rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus
Mannat Johal reported in (2019) 15 SCC 260, is of the
considered view that Insurance Company is liable to pay the
aforesaid compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5%
per annum simple interest, from the date of filing of the
claim till its realization.
2025:JHHC:35706
25. Impugned award reveals that Rs. 50,000/- as interim
compensation has already been paid by the Insurance
Company. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to
indemnify the entire aforesaid computed amount of award
(after deduction of Rs. 50,000/-) to the appellants/
claimants along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum simple
interest, from the date of filing of the claim till its realization,
within a period of 45 days from today.
26. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to
indemnify the amount of Rs. 11,45,200/- after deduction of
Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation, along with interest
@ 7.5 per annum from the date of filing of claim case to the
claimants and the Insurance Company is entitle to recover
the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.
27. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance
Company be remitted to the learned Tribunal by learned
Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks
from today which shall be paid to the claimants by the
learned Tribunal/executing court after notice and due
verification.
28. Resultantly, the Instant Miscellaneous Appeal being
M.A. No. 108 of 2016 preferred by the claimants and M.A. No.
257 of 2016 preferred by the Insurance Company are, hereby
allowed with aforesaid directions.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 28. 11.2025
Suman/-.A.F.R.
