The Branch Manager vs Lovely Dash
2026 Latest Caselaw 231 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

The Branch Manager vs Lovely Dash on 15 January, 2026

                                                2026:JHHC:1237




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               Miscellaneous Appeal No. 232 of 2025
The Branch Manager, M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,
having its local office at 4th Floor, Dhiren Tower, S.B. Shop Area, Q
Road, PO & PS - Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum
(Jharkhand) - 831001 and also through its Sr. Manager (Legal Claims)
Sri. Computer Rath, aged about 39 years, son of M.M. Rath, Presently
posted at Thapar House, 4th Floor, 163, S.P. Mukherjee Road, PO & PS -
Tollygunj, District - Kolkata - 700026 (West Bengal) [Insurer of the
offending Truck Vehicle bearing no. BR-02AA-1962]
                    ...  ...     ...  Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant
                         Versus
1.    Lovely Dash, Aged about 42 years, w/o Late Shyam Chandra
Dash;
2.    Harihar Dash, Aged about 6 years s/o Late Shyam Chandra Dash
3.    Renuka Dash, Aged about 17 years d/o Late Shyam Chandra
Dash, both minors are represented by their natural guardian and mother,
respondent no. 1 namely Lovely Dash, All R/o-Village Krishnapur,
PO/PS-Rajnagar, Dist- Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand-831002
                         ...            ..    .... Applicants/Respondents
4.    Kamta Singh, s/o Shiv Singh, r/o Village - Chandpur, PO Bhaluhar
Chaugain, PS - Roushanganj, District - Gaya (Bihar), PIN-824217.
[Owner of the offending Truck Vehicle bearing no. BR-02AA-1962]
                           ... Opposite Party No.1/Respondents
                         ---------

CORAM:              HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         ---------
For the Petitioner:      Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1-3:       Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate.
For Resp. No.4:          None
                         ---------
05 /Dated: 15.01.2026

1. Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant and

Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3

(claimants).

2. Respondent No. 4, though served, neither present nor represented.

3. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 21.02.2025

made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur awarding the

claimants (respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3) compensation of Rs. 41,08,652/-

2026:JHHC:1237

together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the

claim petition till its actual payment for the demise of Mr. Shyam Chandra

Dash in a vehicular accident on 20.06.2023.

4. The respondent-claimants are the widow Lovely Dash, aged about

42 years, son Harihar Dash, aged about 6 years and daughter Renuka

Dash, aged about 17 years. The deceased, Shyam Chandra Dash, was in

the business of wholesale trading in tamarind (imli), flaxseed (teesi), and

laha.

5. Mrs Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that

this was a case of contributory negligence because it was the claimant's

own case that the insured vehicle, i.e. truck bearing registration No.

BR-02AA-1962 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without

regard for public safety, and the same collided violently with the scooter

that was being driven by the deceased Shyam Chandra Dash. She

submitted that in such circumstances, contributory negligence had to be

inferred because the deceased should have taken due care and

precaution to avoid a head-on collision. She relied on Bijoy Kumar

Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others, (2006) 3 SCC 242 in support

of her contention.

6. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted

without prejudice, that in determining the compensation amount, no

deduction was made from the deceased's income towards income tax.

She submitted that the fact that the deceased was carrying on business

and such business continued was also not considered. For these

reasons, she submitted that the compensation amount awarded is like a

bonanza and the same deserves a significant reduction. She relied upon

2026:JHHC:1237

Rani Gupta and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited

and others, (2009) 13 SCC 498 to support this contention.

7. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that

in this case, there was evidence on record that the Driver of the truck

involved in the accident had a licence to drive LMV and TR. She

submitted that the vehicle was admittedly a truck and therefore would not

have been driven by a person possessing no licence to drive heavy

vehicles. She submitted that this was a clear breach of the insurance

policy terms and, therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the

insurance company. In any event, she submitted that this was a fit case

for making pay and recovery or other as was the position before the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company

Limited Vs. Zaharulnisha and others, (2008) 12 SCC 385.

8. As per all the above reasons, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel

for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment and award

warrants interference.

9. Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for the claimants, defended

the impugned judgment and award based on the reasoning reflected

therein. He submitted that there was no evidence of contributory

negligence or of any breach of the insurance policy. He submitted that

such a contention was not even raised before the Tribunal. He submitted

that there is no evidence that the business continued after the demise of

Late Shyam Chandra Dash. He submitted that there is no error in

determining the compensation except that compensation towards loss of

parental consortium was never awarded to the minor children. He

submitted that, to the said extent, the Award deserves to be modified.

2026:JHHC:1237

10. Rival contentions now fall for determination.

11. This is a case where the deceased Shyam Chandra Dash died in a

vehicular accident on 20.06.2023. He was driving the scooty and was

dashed by a truck bearing registration No. BR-02AA-1962 because of

being driven in a rash and negligent manner without due regard for public

safety. The fact of the accident or the fact that the truck was being driven

in a rash and negligent manner is not even disputed by the appellant-

Insurance company.

12. The argument about contributory negligence is premised on the

contention recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of the impugned

judgment and award wherein it is stated that the truck was driven in a

rash and negligent manner without due regard for public safety, and the

same "collided violently with the said scooty". The argument seeks to

draw sustenance from certain observations in paragraph 12 of Bijoy

Kumar Dugar (supra), which read as under: -

"12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High Court has not dealt with the point in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of MACT recorded under Issue 2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta PW 2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head-on collision. MACT has not accepted the evidence of PW 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle at abnormal speed. If the bus

2026:JHHC:1237

was being driven by the driver abnormally in a zigzag manner, as PW 2 wanted the Court to believe, it was but natural, as a prudent man, for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid head-on collision when he had already seen the bus coming from the opposite direction from a long distance. It was head-on collision in which both the vehicles were damaged and, unfortunately, Raj Kumar Dugar died on the spot. MACT, in our view, has rightly observed that had the knocking been on one side of the car, the negligence or rashness could have been wholly fastened or attributable to the driver of the bus, but when the vehicles had a head-on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. The finding on this issue is a finding of fact and we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disagree with the well- reasoned order of MACT on this point. MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. It is a discretionary relief granted by MACT and, in our view, the discretion exercised by MACT cannot be said to be inadequate and inappropriate."

13. The facts in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) offer no comparison to the

facts in the present case. In the first place, there is no evidence

whatsoever about contributory negligence. Secondly, even if it is

assumed that the contention recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of

the impugned judgment and award, by itself, constitutes evidence, still, all

that it says is that it was a truck that was being driven in a rash and

negligence manner without due regard to the public safety and that the

same collided violently with the said scooty. There is no reference to any

head-on collision. There is no reference to a truck being driven in a zigzag

manner, which was visible from a long distance to the deceased, so as to

give the deceased an opportunity to move away from the deadly path.

2026:JHHC:1237

The very same paragraph 2 records that the scooty was driven at a

normal speed while keeping to the left side of the road. Therefore, by

trying to fit this case into certain observations in Bijoy Kumar Dugar

(supra), even though the facts in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) were

entirely different, is not a ground to uphold the plea of contributory

negligence in this case.

14. So far as the issue of non-deduction of the income tax is

concerned, firstly, even after such deduction, the reduction, if any, to the

compensation amount would be hardly significant. The Tribunal has taken

the deceased's annual income to be Rs. 4.98 lakhs. Upon deduction, the

yearly income would come to Rs. 4.86 lakhs. That apart, if we go by the

discussion in paragraphs 31 and 32, it appears that the income after

payment of tax has been considered. The income, in fact, is based upon

the Income Tax Returns, which were produced during evidence.

Therefore, on this ground, no variation is called for in the compensation

amount that has been determined.

15. The third argument, that the deceased was involved in business

and that only the impact of the demise on the business, which was

otherwise continuing, must be considered, is misconceived, at least in the

facts of the present case. There is no evidence whatsoever that the

business survived the demise of Shyam Chandra Dash, or that it was

continued by the widow and minor children. This case was also not put up

before the Tribunal. Therefore, by simply relying upon certain

observations in Rani Gupta and others (supra), no deduction can be

claimed from the amount already determined by the Tribunal.

2026:JHHC:1237

16. The facts in Rani Gupta and others (supra) were entirely different.

There was evidence of the business's remaining assets. Here, the

deceased was a wholesale merchant dealing in products such as

tamarind (imli), flaxseed (teesi), and laha. Obviously, it cannot be

contended that these were some substantial assets of a non-perishable

nature. Therefore, based on this contention, there is no question of

deducting the compensation amount determined.

17. As regards the interest of 7.5%, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel

for the appellant, did refer to certain decisions where interest at the rate of

only 6% per annum was awarded. However, the Tribunal in this case has

referred to at least two judgments in paragraph 37 where the Hon'ble

Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The

Tribunal has exercised its discretion, as such exercise is not completely

beyond the mark or unreasonable. In a matter of this nature, no case is

made out to interfere with the exercise of such discretion and award of

interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum.

18. Ultimately, the evidence on record shows that the bread earner of

the family died in a road accident under gruesome circumstances, and left

behind a widow and two minor children. Considering all these factors

cumulatively, no case is made out to interfere with the interest of 7.5% per

annum awarded by the Tribunal.

19. Regarding the argument that the truck driver possessed no valid

licence, the record does not indicate that such a plea was specifically

raised. In paragraph 6, there is a reference to the Driver of the TATA truck

having a valid driving licence for LMV and TR, and other documents are

2026:JHHC:1237

also referenced. However, this is not sufficient to infer a breach of the

insurance policy terms.

20. In any event, if such a plea had been specifically raised and

pressed, it is possible the matter could have been explained by the

insured or the Driver. Because such a plea is not clearly reflected in the

impugned judgment and award, it would not be appropriate to allow the

insurance company to raise such a plea before this Court and seek its

exoneration. In any event, such a plea, even if made good, would have

made no difference to the entitlement of the claimants.

21. The impugned award, however, contains an error that is apparent

on the face of the record inasmuch as compensation for loss of parental

consortium has not been awarded to the minor children. This is contrary

to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma

General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in the

case of Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Yadav & Ors., 2022 SCC

OnLine SC 1723. It is a duty of this Court to determine and award just

compensation irrespective of whether the same is prayed for. Accordingly,

the compensation is enhanced by an amount of Rs. 96,800/-, together

with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of

the claim petition till its payment.

22. Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all the above facts and

circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned

judgment and award of the Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed

and is hereby dismissed, subject to modification of the compensation

amount.

2026:JHHC:1237

23. The record shows that 50% of the compensation amount, together

with interest, was already deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal.

Accordingly, the claimants, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are allowed to

withdraw the same by furnishing their bank details and identity documents

to the Tribunal. Upon due satisfaction, the Tribunal will transfer the

compensation amount to the claimants' bank account. Under no

circumstances should any cash withdrawals be permitted.

24. This entire exercise must be completed as expeditiously as

possible and in any event within four weeks from today.

25. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

balance compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal

at Jamshedpur within six weeks from today.

26. Upon deposit, the Tribunal must transfer even this amount to the

claimant's account immediately, subject to the following directions made

for the benefit of the minor claimant.

27. One of the claimants, i.e. Harihar Dash, who was only 6 years old

at the time of the accident, today, the claimant is aged about 8 to 9 years

old; therefore, an amount of at least Rs. 10 lakhs must be retained by his

mother, Lovely Dash, in a Fixed Deposit with the Nationalised Bank. This

amount can be released to Harihar Dash upon his attaining majority.

However, if there is an emergency situation, and this amount becomes

necessary, Lovely Dash is allowed to apply to the Tribunal for the release

of this amount. Upon releasing this amount, the Tribunal should ensure

that Rs. 10 lakhs are maintained in a Fixed Deposit account in the names

of Harihar Dash and Lovely Dash until Harihar Dash attains majority.

2026:JHHC:1237

28. The appellant-Insurance Company must file a compliance report in

this Court after giving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the

claimants, latest by the 26th of March 2026.

29. If no such compliance report is filed, the Registry is directed to

place the matter for directions.

30. The appeal and Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in the

above terms. No costs.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

15.01.2026

NAFR APK/VK

Uploaded on 20.01.2026