[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Branch Manager vs Saraswati Devi Wife Of Shibpujan Sav ... on 28 November, 2025
2025:JHHC:35707
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 195 of 2015
---------
Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. at Palkot Road,
Gumla, P.S., P.O. & District-Gumla.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Saraswati Devi wife of Shibpujan Sav permanent resident of
Village Jairagi, P.S. Dumri, District-Gumla presently residing
at Village- Kersai, P.O. & P.S. Kersai, District-Simdega.
... ... Claimant/respondent
2. Padam Kumar Saboo son of Late Kedarnath Saboo residing
at Main Road, P.O., P.S. Town & District Gumla (Owner).
... .... Respondent
---------
For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate
For the Resp. No.1 : Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, Advocate
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 24.07.2025 Pronounced on 28.11.2025
1. Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-National Insurance Company Limited and Mr. Kripa
Shankar Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Respondent/Claimant.
2. The instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the
appellant-National Insurance Company Limited against the
award dated 24.11.2014 passed by District Judge-cum-
M.A.C.T, Simdega in M.A.C.C No. 03 of 2012 whereby the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.18,72,000/- with
interest @ 12% per annum from date of final order i.e.
24.11.2014 till the date of its realization.
2025:JHHC:35707
3. A short conspectus of relevant facts leading to this present
appeal is that Gopal Prasad Sav (since deceased) while on his
way to Gumla from motorcycle having registration no. JH03 C
5862 for some business work was dashed by a pickup van
(Bolero) having registration no. JH 07 C 5211 driven in rash
and negligent manner by its driver from the opposite direction
while coming from Gumla. Gopal Prasad Sav (since deceased)
due to the said dashed fell on the road and succumbed to his
injury.
4. An F.I.R. regarding above-said incident has been got registered
being Raidih P.S. Case No. 87/11 under Sections
279/304A/427 of IPC. Thereafter, due investigation was done
and charge sheet was submitted against one Prem Nath Singh,
driver of offending pickup van (Bolero) having registration no.
JH 07 C 5211. The claimants, who happens to be Parents of
the deceased- Gopal Prasad Sav, filed an application under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act,
1988).
5. The owner of the offending pickup van (Bolero) and appellant-
National Insurance Company Limited had been made opposite
parties in the said claim application. Record received from
Tribunal further reveals that owner of the offending pickup
van (Bolero) chose not to appear despite service of notice,
before the Tribunal even after several dates and thereafter,
case proceeded ex-parte against the owner of the offending
pickup van (Bolero), however, Insurance Company filed W.S.
and contested the claim.
6. During enquiry before the Tribunal, three witnesses got
examined on behalf of the applicant (respondent herein).
Claimant herself got examined as A.W.-1 who happens to be
mother of the deceased and stated the fact that on account of
2025:JHHC:35707
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending pickup
van (Bolero), the deceased succumbed to injury. A.W.-2 who
happens to be friend of the deceased and reiterated the fact as
stated by A.W.-1, A.W.-3 who happens to be the eyewitness of
the accident has reiterated the fact that on account of rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending pickup van
(Bolero), the deceased succumbed to injury. Claimants further
brought on record following documents :-
Ext. 1:- Certified Copy of F.I.R. of Raidih P.S Case no.-87/11
dated 12.12.11.
Ext.2 :- C. C of Charge-sheet of Raidih 92/11.
Ext. 3:- Xerox copy of Post-mortem Report of Gopal Prasad
Sav.
Ext. 4 :- Xerox copy of Driving License of the driver Prem Nath
Singh.
Ext. 5 :- Xerox copy of R.C Book of the vehicle no.- JH 07C-
5211.
Ext. 6 :- Xerox copy of the Insurance Certificate of the Vehicle
no. - JH 07C-5211.
7. On behalf of opposite party- Insurance Company, no oral or
documentary evidence has been adduced.
8. After analyzing the materials available on record, the learned
Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 24.11.2014 and
thereby directed the appellant-National Insurance Company
Limited to pay Rs.18,72,000/- with interest thereon at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim case. Being
dissatisfied with the above-said impugned award dated
24.11.2014, the appellant-National Insurance Company
Limited preferred this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant-National Insurance
Company Limited challenged the award on the point that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive in
2025:JHHC:35707
terms of the compensation as pleaded/claimed on behalf of
claimants in their Claim Application and submitted that the
learned Tribunal cannot travel beyond the amount of
compensation as claimed/pleaded by the claimants, which is
non-est in law.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant-National Insurance
Company Limited has further submitted that the monthly
income of the deceased who was running a grocery store has
been considered as Rs 15,000/- by the learned Tribunal in the
absence of any proof of income which ought to be calculated
on the basis of minimum wages for the State of Jharkhand
and also learned Tribunal has erred while computing
compensation by not making 50% deduction under head of
Personal and Living expenses as deceased being bachelor in
terms of ratio in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in
(2009) 6 SCC 121. Further, simple interest @ 12% per annum
awarded by the learned Tribunal is in excess which ought to
be @ 6% per annum simple interest from the date of the
application till its realization.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent/Claimant submitted that
learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of
deceased based upon the nature of business carried out by the
deceased and awarded just compensation by taking into
consideration all the factors and, as such, no interference is
required in the award dated 24.11.2014.
12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
materials available on record.
13. Despite valid service of notice, the owner (Respondent No.2) of
the pickup van (Bolero) bearing registration no. JH 07 C 5211
has chosen not to participate in the present proceeding and
thus, this Court proceeds ex parte against the owner.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are mother and father of the
2025:JHHC:35707
deceased and were the claimants before the Tribunal. Record
reveals that during pendency of the present appeal,
Respondent No.2 Shibpujan Sav (father of the deceased) died
and vide order dated 10.01.2022, his name has been deleted
from the array of the respondents.
14. Record further reveals that the claimants pleaded/claimed
compensation to the tune of Rs 10 lacs and the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs 18,72,000/- along with interest
@12% per annum. To answer the contention raised by the
appellant-Insurance company that the compensation awarded
to the claimants by the Tribunal cannot be in excess to the
amount of compensation as pleaded/claimed by the claimants,
it is required to refer herein the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal
Singh reported in(2003) 2 SCC 274 wherein it has been held
that there is no restriction that compensation could be
awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant and if
the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to
get more compensation than claimed, then the Tribunal may
pass such award. Relevant paragraph of the judgment reads
as follows -
7. Firstly, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act") there is no
restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to
the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate
case, where from the evidence brought on record if the
Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to
get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may
pass such award. The only embargo is -- it should be
"just" compensation, that is to say, it should be neither
arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This
would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of
the MV Act.
15. Considering the above legal proposition, this Court is of
considered view that there is no restriction to award
compensation more than as claimed/pleaded by the
2025:JHHC:35707
claimants. Accordingly, the above contention of appellant -
Insurance Company is not tenable.
16. It transpires from the record that deceased was running a
grocery store and was also in the business of buying and
selling of Mahua, laah, Karanj etc. There is finding of the
learned Tribunal that in the absence documentary evidence
qua the income of the deceased on the basis of oral evidence
made by A.W.1 and A.W.2 that the monthly income of the
deceased was Rs 15000/-. A.W.1, the mother of deceased, who
in her deposition at para-4 has specifically deposed that her
son(deceased) runs a grocery store and also used to buy and
sell Mahua, laah, Karanj etc. This generates an income of
about Rs 14000/- to Rs 15000/- per month. Out of this
income, he gave Rs 10000/- every month to his mother to
manage household expenses. A.W.2 who is the friend of the
deceased has also reiterated the fact in evidence at Para-3 that
the deceased was running a grocery store and was also into
the buying and selling of Mahua, laah, Karanj etc, which
generates an income of about Rs 14000/- to Rs 15000/- per
month.
17. It is apposite to refer herein the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar
Yadav reported in (2022) 1 SCC 198 wherein it has been held
that in absence of salary certificate the minimum wage
notification can be a yardstick but it cannot be an absolute
one to fix the income of the deceased and in absence of
documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is
required to be done for assessing the income of the deceased
which should not be totally detached from reality. Relevant
Para of the above judgment reads as follows -
9. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased was
possessing heavy vehicle driving licence and was earning Rs
2025:JHHC:35707
15,000 per month. Possessing such licence and driving of
heavy vehicle on the date of accident is proved from the
evidence on record. Though the wife of the deceased has
categorically deposed as AW 1 that her husband Shivpal was
earning Rs 15,000 per month, same was not considered only
on the ground that salary certificate was not filed. The Tribunal
has fixed the monthly income of the deceased by adopting
minimum wage notified for the skilled labour in the year 2016.
In absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification
can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute
one to fix the income of the deceased. In absence of
documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is
required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for
assessing the income of the deceased should not be totally
detached from reality. Merely because the claimants were
unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly
income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier
of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no
reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased
who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs
15,000 per month.
18. On the bedrock of above legal proposition and considering the
case in hand, this Court is of considered view that the
deceased was running a grocery store and was also in the
business of buying and selling of Mahua, laah, Karanj etc., but
the claimants failed to produce the proof of the actual income
of the deceased before the Tribunal and the Tribunal on the
basis of the oral evidences come to the finding that the
deceased was earning monthly income of Rs. 15,000/-. From
perusal of depositions of witnesses A.W.1 and A.W.2, it
transpires that the deceased was earning about Rs 14000/- to
Rs 15000/- per month and such deposition made by both the
witnesses has not been challenged by giving contrary
suggestions by the Insurance Company during the Cross-
2025:JHHC:35707
examination of the said witnesses. During Cross- examination,
it has been categorically stated by the A.W.1 and A.W.2 that
the deceased used to file his Income Tax. It is not in dispute
that the deceased was running a grocery store and was also
into buying and selling of Mahua, laah, Karanj etc and oral
evidence by A.W.1, mother of the deceased clearly shows that
her son was earning Rs 14000/- to Rs 15000/- per month and
was giving her Rs 10,000/- per month for household expenses,
which cannot be discarded on the ground of absence of proof
of income.
19. It is apparent that deceased was managing a grocery store and
apart from his store, he was also into buying and selling of
different commodities like Mahua, laah, Karanj etc. having
commercial value, is used for commercial purposes and thus,
definitely, generates some income apart from the grocery store.
On the basis of above discussion, this Court is of considered
view that it would be appropriate in the absence of proof of
income, to held that the deceased was earning income of Rs
12000/- per month at the time of accident.
20. Considering Rs. 12,000/- as the monthly income of the
deceased and being bachelor 50% as deduction towards
personal and living expenses and 18 as multiplier on the basis
of the age of deceased as per the post mortem report i.e. 20
years in view of Sarla verma (supra), addition of 40% as
future prospect as deceased being self employed and below 40
years of age and Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head as
per Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680, the final compensation amount will
workout as under:-
Monthly Income Rs. 12,000/-
2025:JHHC:35707
Personal & Living Expenses Rs. 12,000 x 50% =
(Deduction) Sarla verma (supra)
Rs 6,000/-
Annual Income Rs 6,000×12 =
Rs. 72,000/-
Multiplier of 18 (the age of the Rs.72,000×18=
deceased was 20 years as at the time Rs. 12,96,000/-
of the accident) Sarla verma (supra)
Future Prospect -(40%) Pranay Sethi Rs.12,96,000×40% =
(Supra)
Rs. 5,18,400/-
Rs.12,96,000+5,18,400
= Rs. 18,14,400/-
Conventional Head (Loss of Estate,
Funeral Expenses and Loss of
Rs. 70,000/-
Consortium) Pranay Sethi (Supra)
Total Compensation Rs.18,14,400+70,000 =
Rs. 18,84,400/-
Award received under section 140
M.V Act,1988 as interim
Rs 50,000/-
Compensation
Final Compensation Rs.18,84,400-50,000=
Rs 18,34,000/-
21. As far as, interest part is concerned, 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 260, is of considered view that
2025:JHHC:35707
appellant-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.
22. Further, it transpires that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
vide its order dated 05.04.2022 had directed the Insurance
Company to disburse the amount to the tune of
Rs. 18,00,000/- to the claimants and in compliance of the
above order the Insurance Company has made payment of
Rs.18,00,000/- on 11.07.2022 before the Tribunal vide its
cheque no.- 117519 dated 20.06.2022. Therefore, the
Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the remaining
amount of award to the 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.
23. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company be
remitted to the 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.
24. Consequently, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A.
No. 195 of 2015, is hereby, allowed with aforesaid directions.
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated: 28. 11.2025
Suman/-A.F.R.
