[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Miss Sujata Chaudhary Daughter Of Late ... vs Rupesh S/O Late Radha Krishna Chaudhary on 28 November, 2025
2025:JHHC:35651
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 225 of 2012
---------
1. Miss Sujata Chaudhary daughter of Late Radha Krishna
Chaudhary
2. Mrs. Veena Devi wife of Late Baidya nath Chaudhary
Both resident of Village - Sultanpur Post- Veri, P.S. Kusheshwar
Sthan, District- darbhanga (Bihar). At present Station Road, Babhan
Toli Post- Giridih P.S. Giridih (T) District- Giridih
... ... Appellants /Claimants
Versus
1. Rupesh s/o Late Radha Krishna Chaudhary, Station Road, Babhan
Toli Post Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T), District- Giridih.
2. Md. Islam son of Md. Suleman Resident of Whitty Bazar, Post
Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T), District- Giridih.
3. The New Assurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager,
Giridih Branch Office, Makatpur, Post Giridih, P.S. Giridih (T),
District- Giridih.
4. M/s. Bright Vision Private Ltd. B-2/3 Gillanger House 8, N.S. Road,
At and Post Kolkata- 700001 (W.B.)
5. Maso Khatoon wife of Md. Rajjak, Village Jawanpur, Post Dadpur,
P.S. Chouparan, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).
6. Md. Wahab, son of Razzak Mian, Village- Jawanpur, Post Dadpur,
P.S. Chouparan, District- Hazaribagh (Jharkhand).
7. Mathura Thakur son of Late Gango Thakur, Village- Nimadih, Post
Arkhango, P.S. Rajdhanwar, District- Giridih. At present- Jhumri
Telaiya, P.O. & P.S. Jhumri Telaiya, District- Koderma.
... ... Respondents/Opp. Parties.
For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 31.07.2025 Pronounced on 28.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellants/ claimants and Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company.
2025:JHHC:35651
2. The appellants/ claimants have preferred instant appeal for
enhancement of compensation vide award dated 13.08.2012 passed in
M.V. Claim Case - 43 of 2005 whereby the Claim Tribunal, Giridih has
awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,28,160/- along with interest
@ 5% p.a. from 16.12.2006 till its realization in equal share to the
claimants.
3. It is the case of the appellants/ claimants that at the time of
accident, deceased was having monthly income of Rs. 10,302/- as he
was employed as assistant in the District Animal Husbandry
Department, Giridih and as per the claim application, he was 49 years
10 months of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal admitted
monthly income of Rs. 10,302/- on the basis of last Pay certificate
adduced into evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and
by taking age of 50 years of the deceased as per the Service Book (Ext.-
1), the final compensation amount was computed Rs. 8,28,160 with
interest @ 5% per annum.
4. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants
that the learned Tribunal has erred while computing compensation by
not applying multiplier of 13 as deceased was aged 50 years , in terms
of ratio in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC
121.
5. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/
claimants that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not in
consonance with the ratio laid down by 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.
4,500/- has been awarded. Further, interest @ 5% simple interest
awarded by the learned Tribunal which ought to be @ 12% simple
interest from the date of the application till its realization.
2025:JHHC:35651
6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company very fairly conceded to
the fact that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in
terms of ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Sarla
verma (supra).
7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both
the sides and perusing the materials on record, it transpires that owner,
driver and Insurance Company of the Maruti Alto Car having no.-
JH 09 7083, owner, in charge and driver of the Tata Indica car having
no.- WB 02K 3131 and owner of the truck having no.- JH 12A 1017 has
also been made party before learned tribunal. However, Insurance
Company, owner and driver of the Maruti Alto Car having no.- JH 09
7083 and owner of the Tata Indica car having no.- WB 02K 3131
appeared but in charge and driver of the Tata Indica car having no.- WB
02K 3131 and owner of the truck having no.- JH12A 1017 did not
choose to appear before learned tribunal and the learned tribunal
proceeded ex parte against the respondents, in charge and driver of the
Tata Indica car having no.- WB 02K 3131 and owner of the truck having
no.- JH12A 1017. However, the respondent's owner, driver and
Insurance Company of the Maruti Alto Car having no.- JH 09 7083,
owner, in charge and driver of the Tata Indica car having no.- WB 02K
3131 and owner of the truck having no.- JH 12A 1017 have been made
respondent nos. 1 to 7 before this court and despite valid service of
notice, they failed to mark their appearance before this court and only
Insurance Company marked its appearance being respondent no. 3.
8. It is not in dispute that deceased having monthly income of Rs.
10,302/- on the basis of last Pay certificate as he was employed as
assistant in the District Animal Husbandry Department, Giridih.
As far as age of the deceased is concerned, age of the deceased
was 49 years 1 month and 18 days at the time of accident, as calculated
from Date of Birth of the deceased as found mention in the service Book
i.e. 05.12.1955 (Ext.-1). However, learned Tribunal has taken into
2025:JHHC:35651
consideration 50 year of age of the deceased at the time of accident and
erred by applying 10 as multiplier which ought to be 13 on the basis of
age ranging from 46 to 50 years as per Sarla verma (supra).
9. Considering Rs. 10,302/- as the monthly income of the deceased,
being two member as dependents 1/3rd as deduction towards personal
and living expenses and 13 as multiplier on the basis of age ranging
from 46 to 50 years as per Sarla verma (supra), addition of 30% as
future prospect as age of deceased was between 40 to 50 years of age
and Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head as per Pranay Sethi
(Supra), the final compensation amount will work out as under:-
Monthly Income Rs. 10,302/-
Personal & Living Expenses (Deduction) Rs. 10,302×1/3rd =
Sarla verma (supra) Rs 3,434
Rs. 10,302 - Rs. 3,434 =
Rs.6,868/-
Annual Income Rs. 6,868×12 =
Rs. 82,416
Multiplier of 13 (as the age of the deceased at Rs. 82,416 ×13=
the time of the accident within the age ranging Rs. 10,71,408/-
from 46 to 50 years) Sarla verma (supra)
Future Prospect - (30%) Rs. 10,71,408× 30% =
Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 3,21,422/-
Rs. 10,71,408 + 3,21,422=
Rs. 13,92,830/-
Conventional Head (Loss of Estate, Funeral Rs. 70,000/-
Expenses and Loss of Consortium)
Pranay Sethi (Supra)
Total Compensation Rs. 13,92,830+ Rs.70,000 =
Rs. 14,62,830/-
10. As far as, interest part is concern, this court taking the legal
proposition in the judgment rendered by the apex court in the case of
National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, reported in (2019) 15 SCC
2025:JHHC:35651
260, is of considered view that Respondent no.-3- 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 case
till its realization.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion impugned award dated
13.08.2012 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih
is modified accordingly.
12. Record reveals that Respondent no.-3- Insurance Company has not
indemnified the award amount to the claimants, therefore, the
Respondent no.-3- Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the
compensation of Rs. 14,62,830/-, after deducting the interim
compensation of Rs. 50,000/- if awarded, to the appellants/ claimants
along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the
claim case, within a period of 45 days from today.
13. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 225 of
2012, is hereby, allowed.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 28th day of November, 2025
Abhishek/-
N.A.F.R.
