Jharkhand High Court
Hamidan Bibi vs Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. (Fsnl) on 10 October, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
1. Hamidan Bibi, wife of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari,
2. Saki Imam, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari
3. Parwej Alam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari,
All residents of Village- Ukrid Basti, P.S. Bokaro Steel City, (Sector XII
O.P.), Bokaro at present Sector XI, Qr. No.1144, B.S. City, Bokaro
... Appellants/Claimants
-Versus-
1. Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. (FSNL), through its General Manager, Bokaro
Steel Plant, B.S. City, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City, District- Bokaro
(Owner of Dumper bearing registration No.DT-2635 FSNL)
2. Swapan Mitra, son of Surendra Nath Mitra, Driver, Staff No.360, FSNL,
Bokaro Steel Plant, Bokaro
Permanent Address- C Block, Road No.4, Netaji Colony, Durgapur, Tauri,
P.O. & P.S. Benachatti, District- Burdwan, West Bengal
3. Ali Imam Ansari
4. Md. Samiullah Ansari
Nos. 3 and 4 are sons of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, both resident of Village
Ukrid, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City (Sector XII O.P.), District- Bokaro
5. Taki Ansari, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Patratu, P.S. &
P.O. Patratu, District- Bokaro
6. Jafar Imam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Greater
Noida, Gama-1, P.O. & P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar, NOIDA, Uttar Pradesh
7. Juned Akhtar Alal, son of Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Village
Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, Bokaro
8. Sahida Parween, D/o Late Abdul Aziz Ansari, resident of Village
Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, Bokaro ... Opposite Parties
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd. (FSNL), a Government of India Undertaking
through its Assistant General Manager (Law)/MDS Coordination Sri V.V.
Satyanarayana, son of Late V. Venkata Rao, having its office at
Equipment Chowk, Central Avenue, P.O. Sector-I, P.s. Bhatti Thana,
Bhilai- 490 001 (Chhatisgarh) ... Appellant
-Versus-
1. Ali Imam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari
2. Md. Samiullah Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari
Both resident of Village Ukrid, P.O. & P.S. B.S. City (Sector XII), District-
Bokaro
3. Taki Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of Patratu, P.O. &
P.S. Patratu, District- Bokaro
4. Jafar Imam Ansari, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of Greater
Noida, Gama-1, Gautam Budh Nagar, P.O. & P.S. Gautam Budh Nagar,
District- Noida
5. Juned Akhtar Alal, son of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of Village
Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, District- Bokaro
6. Sahida Parween, daughter of Late Abdul Azuiz Ansari, resident of
-1- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
Village Tupkadih, P.O. & P.S. Jaridih, District- Bokaro
... Opposite Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
-----
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, Advocate (In M.A.-132/13)
Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In M.A.-86/13)
Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
For the O.Ps. : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate (In M.A.-132/13)
Ms. Puja Agarwal, Advocate
-----
15/10.10.2025 Heard Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 and Mr. Indrajit Sinha
along with Ms. Puja Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 and opposite parties in Miscellaneous
Appeal No.132 of 2013.
2. Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 has been preferred challenging
the part of the award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-
cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008,
whereby, the learned Tribunal held the deceased as contributory negligent to
the accident and on account of contributory negligence, deducted 50% from
the total calculated compensation amount and awarded a meagre sum of
Rs.8,57,876/- with interest rate @ 9% per annum. Miscellaneous Appeal
No.86 of 2013 has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle for setting-
aside the said award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal.
3. Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013, which has been preferred by the
claimants submits that the claimants have filed T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008
alleging therein that the deceased was an employee of Bokaro Steel Plant and
on 12.11.2007 at 12.15 p.m., he was going to his duty by a motorcycle and
-2- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
one Ram Krishna Das was also along with him. In the meantime, the
offending vehicle- dumper bearing registration No.DT-2635 FSNL being driven
rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of Abdul Aziz Ansari from the
rear side, as a result of which, he received fatal injury and died on spot. Ram
Krishna Das also received grievous injuries and as a result of the accident, his
one leg and one hand had to be amputated. It was further alleged that the
deceased was 57 years of age and having a monthly income of Rs.23,691.16/-
per month. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted
50% from the total calculated compensation amount on the ground of
contributory negligence. He then submits that the chargesheet was submitted
only against the driver of the dumper in question and chargesheet has not
been submitted against the deceased and in view of that, it is proved that
there is no contributory negligence so far as the deceased is concerned. In
view of that, he submits that the entire awarded amount may kindly be
directed to be paid to the claimants/appellants and the award may kindly be
modified to that effect. He next submits that the learned Tribunal has not
given any direction for payment of amount towards future prospect and in
conventional head, only Rs.10,000/- has been directed to be paid in place of
Rs.70,000/- in light of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, reported in
(2017) 16 SCC 680. On these grounds, he submits that the award of the
learned Tribunal may kindly be modified.
4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-owner
of the dumper in Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 and opposite parties in
Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 is not disputing the accident. He further
-3- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
submits that the deceased was negligent and in view of that, 50% liability
fastened upon the owner of the dumper is not in accordance with law. He
then submits that the appellants/claimants are not entitled for any
compensation. He next submits that a sum of Rs.2,42,100/- has been
deposited by the employer of the deceased under Workmen's Compensation
Act, 1923, which was received by the claimants. He also submits that in view
of that also, the present appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is not
maintainable. According to him, claims cannot be made for one accident
under two different statutes. He further submits that preliminary objection
was raised before the learned Tribunal with regard to payment made by the
employer of the deceased i.e. Bokaro Steel Plant and the learned Tribunal has
also taken note of that and in spite of that, the learned Tribunal has allowed
the claim of the claimants. He then submits that the entire salary of the
deceased without deducting of the income tax amount has been considered
by the learned Tribunal and in view of that also, the award is bad in law. On
these grounds, he submits that the award may kindly be set-aside.
5. In reply, Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants/claimants submits that the claimants have not withdrawn any
amount under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He also submits that if any
cheque has been deposited by the Bokaro Steel Plant before the learned
Tribunal, the onus lies on the owner of the dumper to prove that the said
amount has been withdrawn by the claimants. He further submits that Ext.-4
is the pay slip of the deceased and it transpires from the salary slip that the
income tax amount has already been deducted, which has been considered
by the learned Tribunal. On these grounds, he submits that the arguments on
-4- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
behalf of the owner of the dumper are misconceived one.
6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court has gone through the impugned award as well as the Trial Court
Records. It is an admitted position that the accident took place on 12.11.2007
and pursuant to that Abdul Aziz Ansari (deceased) has died on the spot. The
chargesheet has been submitted only against the driver of the dumper. The
chargesheet has not been submitted against the deceased and there is no
finding to that effect. The learned Tribunal only on the ground of external
enquiry has given finding to the effect that the deceased was also negligent,
however, in light of the chargesheet submitted against the driver of the
dumper, it clearly suggests that the driver of the dumper was negligent in
driving the vehicle. In view of that, the contention of the learned counsel for
the owner of the dumper with regard to contributory negligence is not being
accepted by this Court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the owner of the dumper in question
has not been able to prove by way of any documentary evidence that the
claimants have withdrawn the amount of Rs.2,42,100/-, which was deposited
by the Bokaro Steel Plant where the deceased was working.
8. In light of Ext.4, which is the salary slip of the deceased, there is no
force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the owner of the
dumper in question with regard to deduction of income tax as the salary was
calculated after deduction of income tax. The calculation of salary has been
made by the learned Tribunal correctly in light of Ext.-4.
9. In view of these facts and reasons, there is no merit in the appeal
preferred by the owner of the dumper in question and, as such, Miscellaneous
-5- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
Appeal No.86 of 2013 is, hereby, dismissed.
10. In light of the above discussions as the chargesheet has not been
submitted against the deceased and the chargesheet is only against the driver
of the dumper, the Court finds that contributory negligence cannot be
fastened upon the deceased and, as such, that part of the finding of the
learned Tribunal of deduction of 50% from the total calculated compensation
amount, is not tenable in the eyes of law.
11. Looking into the award, it transpires that the learned Tribunal has not
paid any amount towards future prospect, which is mandatory in light of the
judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (supra) and in view of that, future
prospect is required to be added to the tune of 15% of the income.
12. The Court further finds force in the argument of Mr. Saibal Kumar Laik,
learned counsel appearing for the claimants that under the conventional head,
only Rs.10,000/- has been paid, however, it should be Rs.70,000/- and 10%
further at the interval of 3 years each.
13. Ext.-4 is the document, which is the salary slip of the deceased, from
which, it is crystal clear that deduction of income tax has been made and,
thereafter, salary has been counted by the learned Tribunal.
14. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the award is modified
to the effect that the claimants will be entitled to entire compensation amount
to the tune of Rs.17,15,752/-. In the said amount, 15% of the income will be
further added on the future prospect. In the conventional head, only
Rs.10,000/- has been paid and in view of that, in the conventional head, the
claimants are entitled to Rs.70,000/- in which further 10% will be added in
-6- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
( 2025:JHHC:31386 )
every 3 years.
15. The award dated 14.03.2013 passed by the learned District Judge-
cum-Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No.80/2008
is modified to the above effect.
16. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Appeal No.132 of 2013 is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
17. Consequently, Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013 is dismissed. If the
statutory amount is deposited in the Registry by the appellant of
Miscellaneous Appeal No.86 of 2013, the same will be transferred to the
learned Tribunal and the same will be utilized in satisfying the award.
18. Both the Miscellaneous Appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
19. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of.
20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned Court forthwith.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 10th October, 2025
Ajay/ A.F.R.
-7- Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 of 2013
With
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 86 of 2013
