[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Tannu Devi vs Upendra Kumar on 13 February, 2026
(2026: JHHC:4099)
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 652 of 2019
1. Tannu Devi, wife of Late Lalu Kumar @ Lalu Yadav, aged about 20
years.
2. Chatiya Devi wife of Umesh Ray, aged about 42 years.
3. Umesh Ray son of Ram Saran Ray, aged about 47 years.
4. Kisha Kumari, daughter of Umesh Ray, aged about 17 years.
5. Dharmendra Kumar, son of Umesh Ray, aged about 16 years,
(Appellant nos. 4 and 5 are minor and hence being represented
through their mother and natural guardian the appellant no.2.),
All resident of Village- Dundibag Bazar, P.O. and P.S.- B.S. City,
District- Bokaro. .... Appellants
Versus
1. Upendra Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad, resident of Badhyi Mohalla
near Angan Bari House No. 45, Dundibag, P.S.- Sector 12, P.O.-
Sector-12, District- Bokaro (owner of Mahendra Bolero Pick Up
bearing no. JH09AC-7203).
2. Mainuddin Mian, son of Sabir Mian, resident of Bargach Dundibagh
near Bengali Pada, near Co-operative Colony, P.S. & P.S.- B.S. City,
District- Bokaro (driver of Mahendra Bolero Pick Up bearing no.
JH09AC-7203).
3. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd, represented through Divisional
Manager, City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, P.O. and P.S.- Sector IV,
District- Bokaro (Insurance of Mahendra Bolero Pick Up bearing no.
JH09AC-7203 vide policy no. 2107013115P113318250 valid from
04.02.2016 to 03.02.2017).
.... Respondents
With
M.A. No. 256 of 2019
M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd, represented through
Divisional Manager, P.O. & P.S.-City Centre, Bokaro, Sector-IV, B.S.
City, District- Bokaro (Insurance of Mahendra Bolero Pick Up Reg.
No. JH09AC-7203).
.... .... Appellant
1. Tannu Devi, wife of Late Lalu Kumar @ Lalu Yadav,
2. Chatiya Devi wife of Umesh Ray,
3. Umesh Ray son of Ram Saran Ray,
4. Kisha Kumari,
5. Dharmendra Kumar,
(Respondent nos. (4) and (5) are being minor sister and brother,
represented through their father Umesh Ray, the natural father of the
Minor respondents),
All are resident of Village- Dundibag Bazar, P.O. and P.S.- B.S. City,
District- Bokaro.
6. Upendra Kumar, son of Suresh Prasad, resident of Badhyi Mohalla
near Angan Bari House No. 45, Dundibag, P.S. & P.O.- Sector
1
12, District- Bokaro (owner of Mahendra Bolero Pick Up
bearing no. JH09AC-7203).
7. Mainuddin Mian, son of Sabir Mian, resident of Bargach Dundibagh
near Bengali Pada, near Co-operative Colony, P.O.& P.S.- B.S. City,
District- Bokaro (driver of Mahendra Bolero Pick Up bearing no.
JH09AC-7203). .... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
------
For the Appellants : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pathak, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Nikhil Ranjan, Advocate
-----
Order No.17 Dated 13.02.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that both these appeals can be
disposed of by a common judgment and order.
3. Even otherwise, both these appeals are directed against the Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal's judgment and award dated 23.02.2018.
Therefore, it is only appropriate that both these appeals, which are in the
nature of cross appeals, are disposed of by a common judgment and
order.
4. M.A. No. 256 of 2019 is instituted by the Insurance Company and M.A.
No. 652 of 2019 is instituted by the claimants.
5. The Insurance Company contends that the driver of the insured vehicle,
who has died in the accident, was only a Cleaner, not authorised to drive
the vehicle. The Insurance Company has also contended that this Cleaner
had no licence to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company contends that this constitutes a fundamental breach
of a crucial clause of the Insurance Policy and that the Insurance
Company should be absolved of any liability. Learned counsel for the
Insurance Company also submitted that there was no evidence about the
precise income of the deceased and, therefore, the compensation awarded
is exorbitant and warrants interference.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that no such issue was raised
before the Tribunal and consequently, no issue was cast by the Tribunal.
In any event, he submitted that there was ample evidence to show that the
deceased was the driver-cum-cleaner, and, further, that the driving
licence was produced and marked in evidence. Accordingly, he submitted
that there was no breach of the Insurance Policy's terms and conditions.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the impugned award
warrants interference to the extent it has failed to take into account the
aspect of future prospect and further, has determined compensation
towards the consortium of only Rs. 40,000/- instead of determining this
compensation @ Rs. 40,000/- in respect of each of the claimants.
Accordingly, he submitted that the claimants' appeal be allowed and the
Insurance Company's appeal be dismissed.
8. The rival contentions now fall for determination.
9. So far as the appeal by the Insurance Company is concerned, it does not
appear that the ground which is now sought to be raised in the appeal was
either seriously raised or pressed before the Tribunal. At no stage did the
Insurance Company raise any issue in this regard, and it did not insist
upon recasting or determining this issue. This is not a purely legal issue.
It is a mixed issue of law and fact.
10. Be that as it may, the contention of the Insurance Company is now being
considered in this appeal. First, there is no evidence that the deceased
was not the driver of the insured vehicle. Father of the deceased, Umesh
Rai, has clearly deposed that the deceased was driver-cum-cleaner of the
insured vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Bolero Pick Up. Significantly, even the
Driving Licence of the deceased bearing No. JH092015/0093188 issued
by the D.T.O., Bokaro, was produced in evidence. His driving licence is
identified and marked as an exhibit.
11. There was no serious cross-examination on the above aspect, which is
now sought to be raised in appeal. The Insurance Company also did not
produce any evidence to show that the deceased was indeed not a driver
or did not have a driving licence. Ordinarily, the burden is on the
Insurance Company to plead and prove any defence of breach of the
fundamental policy of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
In any event, after Umesh Rai's clear and categorical deposition, the onus
certainly shifted upon the Insurance Company to make good their case,
assuming that such a case was indeed raised and pressed before the
Tribunal. The Insurance Company has failed in doing so. Therefore, the
Insurance Company's contention is hereby rejected.
12. So far as the income of the deceased is concerned, the record shows that
Umesh Rai, the deceased's father, has clearly deposed that the deceased's
income was Rs. 6000/- per month. The Tribunal, however, has adopted
the minimum wage and held the deceased's income to be Rs. 5,850/- per
month. This is reasonable, given that the accident occurred on
17.05.2016. Accordingly, even the second contention raised on behalf of
the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
13. As a result, the Insurance Company's appeal bearing No. M.A. No. 256
of 2019 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed without any
order for costs.
14. So far as the claimants' appeal is concerned, it appears that the Tribunal
has failed to account for future prospects at 40%, in light of the law laid
down in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation &
Anr1 and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi &
Ors2. This contention is well-founded, and, in determining compensation
for dependency, future prospects must be taken into account.
15. Upon taking into account the future prospects @ 40% since there was no
clarity whether the appellant was a salaried employee or not, the annual
income of the deceased would come to Rs. 98,280/- and not merely Rs.
70,200/-. After deducting 25% for personal expenses, the amount would
be Rs. 73,710. The multiplier in this case is admittedly 18 because the
deceased was 20 years old at the time of his unfortunate demise.
Therefore, the compensation towards dependency would come to Rs.
13,26,780 (Rs. 73,710 x 18).
16. The Tribunal has awarded a consolidated amount of Rs. 70,000/- towards
loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, etc. Although the decisions
relied upon by the learned counsel for the claimants hold that no separate
compensation is payable for loss of love and affection, compensation of
Rs. 40,000/- is payable to each of the claimants for loss of consortium.
This is in accordance with the law laid down in Magma General
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others3. To this
extent, the impugned award also warrants interference. Upon adding Rs.
2,00,000/- for loss of consortium, the compensation amount would be Rs.
15,26,780/-.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2018) 18 SCC 130
17. In addition to the above amount, Rs. 15,000/- was awarded for loss of
estate and further Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. This would take the
final compensation amount to Rs. 15,56,780.
18. As to the payment of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest at 6% per
annum, which is sustainable. However, the Tribunal has granted interest
only from the date of its award till realisation. The interest was required
to be granted from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. on
18.01.2017, till the date of actual payment. The impugned award is also
modified to the above extent.
19. The claimants' appeal is therefore partly allowed. The compensation
amount, as determined by the Tribunal, is now enhanced from Rs.
10,25,400/- to Rs. 15,56,780/-. The direction regarding the deduction of
Rs. 50,000/-, if paid to the claimants, remains in force.
20. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount,
as modified by this judgment and order, in this Court within four weeks
from today, after giving necessary intimation to the learned counsel for
the claimants. Upon deposit, learned counsel for the claimants must
furnish identity and Bank details of the claimants to the Registry. The
Registry must transfer the compensation amount directly into the
claimants' bank account, and under no circumstances should any cash
withdrawals be permitted. The Registry should verify that the amount is
really being credited into the claimants' Bank account.
21. If the amount is not deposited within the specified timeline, the Insurance
Company shall pay interest at 10% per annum on the delayed payment.
This additional 4% interest must be recovered from the Divisional
Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company personally, if necessary, by
deducting from the salary payable to him. This is, of course, subject to
there being no interim relief or stay secured from the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the meanwhile. Otherwise, for the routine delay of the Insurance
Company's officials, public money cannot be squandered. Therefore, the
direction for recovery is from the Divisional Manager.
22. Apportionment percentage, as directed in the impugned award, is
maintained. However, apportionment should now take into account the
enhanced compensation.
23. Both appeals are disposed of on the above terms, without any order for
costs.
24. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this judgment and
order.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
February 13, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 16.02.2026
