[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Kunti Devi Wife Of Late Shyam Sundar ... vs Shree Bajrangbali Transport Through ... on 20 March, 2026
2026:JHHC:7973
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 557 of 2016
1. Kunti Devi wife of Late Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam Yadav
2. Priyanka Kumari daughter of Late Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam
Yadav
3. Aarti Kumari daughter of Late Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam
Yadav
4. Bhagiya Devi wife of Late Hiraman Mahto
The appellant nos. 2 and 3 are presently minor as such they are
being represented through their mother and natural guardian/next
friend, Kunti Devi; the appellant no. 1 herein.
All resident of Village Nawadih, Post - Kumharlalo, P.S. Pirtand,
District - Giridih
... ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Shree Bajrangbali Transport Through its proprietor Shri Rajkishore
Pandey Son of Late Sambhu Nath Pandey Resident of Kunwar Singh
Colony Post and P.S. Chas, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand)
2. Sri Balmukund Choudhary Son of Vishundev Choudhary Resident
of Jodhadih More Post and P.S. Bokaro District - Bokaro PIN code
827013
3. Ramchandra Patnayak Son of Gukul Bihari Patnayak Resident of
Rana Pratap Nagar Chas, Post and P.S. Chas District - Bokaro
(Jharkhand)
4. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Through The Branch
Manager 3rd Floor. Chandrakali Bhawan M-5, City Centre Bokaro Steel
City Post and P.S Bokaro Steel City District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) PIN
code-827004
5. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited 570, Naigaum Cross
Road, Next to Royal Industrial Estate P,.S. Vadala, Post Vadala (West)
District-Mumbai PIN code-400031
6. (i) Smt. Marachi Devi wife of Late Jagarnath Gope.
(ii) Anil Yadav Son of Late Jagarnath Gope (minor son) represented
through his mother and natural guardian.
-1 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
Resident of Village Nawadih, Post - Kumharlalo P.S. Pirtand, District -
Giridih
.. ... Respondents
With
Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016
1.(a) Marchi Devi, aged above 43 years, wife of Late Jagarnath Gope
1.(b) Anil Yadav (Minor Son) aged about 16 years, Son of Late
Jagarnath Gope, represented through his mother and natural
guardian, namely Marchi Devi
Resident of village - Nawadih, P.O. Kumharlalo, P.S. Pirtand,
District Giridih.
... ... ... Appellants
Versus
1. Kunti Devi wife of Late Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam Yadav.
2. Priyanka Kumari daughter of Late Shyam Sundar Yadav @
Shyam Yadav.
3. Aarti Kumari daughter of Late Shyam Sundar Yadav @ Shyam
Yadav.
4. Bhagiya Devi wife of Late Hiraman Mahto.
The Respondent No. 2 and 3 are presently minor as such they are
being represented through their mother and natural guardian/next
friend, Kunti Devi, The respondent no. 1 herein.
All resident of Village Nawadih, P.O. Kumharlalo, P.S. Pirtand,
District - Giridih.
5. Shree Bajrangbali Transport through its proprietor Shri Rajkishore
Pandey son of Late Sambhu Nath Pandey, resident of Kunwar Singh
Colony Post and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro (Jharkhand).
6. Sri Balmukund Choudhary son of Vishundev Choudhary, resident
of Jodhadih more, P.S. Chas, PO-Bokaro, District Bokaro PIN Code
827013 (Jharkhand)
7. Ramchandra Patnayak son of Gokul Bihari Patnayak, reisent of
Rana Pratap Nagar, Chas, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro
(Jharkhand)
8. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited through the Branch
Manager 3rd Floor. Chandrakali Bhawan M-5, City Centre, Bokaro Steel
City, P.O. and P.S. - Bokaro Steel City, District Bokaro (Jharkhan) PIN
Code 827004.
9. Reliance General Insurance Company Limitd 570, Naigaum Cross
Road, Next to Royal Industrial Estate, P.S. Vadala, Post Vadala (West)
District Mumbai PIN Code 400031
... ... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
-2 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
For the Appellants: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mrs. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Amarjeet Prasad, Advocate
[in Misc. Appeal No. 557 of 2016]
For the Appellants: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sah, Advocate
Ms. Puja Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Amarjeet Prasad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
Mrs. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate
Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
[in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016]
For the Insurance Co.: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate
[in both cases]
---------
22 /Dated: 20.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both these appeals
can be disposed of by a common judgment and order, as they
challenge the judgment and Award dated 22.07.2016 in MV Claim Case
No. 52 of 2013, passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal,
Giridih.
3. The Misc. Appeal No. 557 of 2016 is preferred by the original
claimants, seeking, inter alia, enhancement of compensation and Misc.
Appeal No. 594 of 2016 is preferred by the owner of the motorcycle
involved in the accident, contending that there was no evidence to
establish that the deceased driver was negligent and therefore, no
liability should have been fastened upon the owner of the motorcycle.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 594
of 2016 [owner] has also submitted without prejudice that
apportionment of liability to the extent of 50% on the appellant, i.e. the
-3 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
owner of the motorcycle, was excessive because the motorcycle was
admittedly a much lighter vehicle as compared to the truck with which
the motorcycle suffered collision. He submitted without prejudice that
liability to the extent of a maximum of 10% would have been fastened
upon the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 557 of
2016, i.e. the claimants submitted that there was evidence of the
deceased being a mason. He submitted that this position was accepted
by the Tribunal, but the deceased's income was assessed for only 15
days in a month, rather than 26 days, which is the normal rule. He
submitted that there was no reason to deny the claim that the deceased
was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month from his work as a mason.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 557 of
2016 (original claimants) further submitted that no addition was made
towards future prospects, and even the consortium compensation was
not consistent with the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) and others
Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and
National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others,
(2017) 16 SCC 680.
7. The learned counsel for the original claimants submitted that the
interest has been awarded only from the date of the Award and not
from the date of the claim petition, which is also an error.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of
2016, apart from raising the above-referred contention indicated at the
outset, submitted that no liability should be fastened upon the appellant
-4 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
or, in any event, the liability should not exceed 10% of the
compensation amount.
9. Mrs Swati Shalini, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company in both the appeals, submitted that this was a case where the
deceased was driving an uninsured motorcycle without a license.
Further, this was a case of a head-on collision; therefore, there was
nothing wrong in fastening liability to the extent of 50% on the owner of
the motorcycle, i.e. the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016.
10. Mrs. Swati Shalini submitted that there was no evidence about
the income of the deceased. Still, the Tribunal presumed the income to
be Rs. 6,000/- per month in 2013, which was quite reasonable given the
absence of evidence of any actual income. She submitted that the
Tribunal has incorrectly applied the multiplier of 17, when the deceased
was 35 years old at the time of the accident, and the multiplier,
therefore, could have been only 16, not 17. She submitted that the
interest @ 9% per annum was quite excessive and perhaps, therefore,
the same was made payable from the date of the Award.
11. For all the above reasons, Mrs Swati Shalini submitted that both
the Appeals may be dismissed.
12. The rival contentions now fall for determination.
13. The first issue to be determined is whether the findings
regarding composite negligence and the apportionment of liability
based thereon warrant interference.
14. The evidence on record establishes that the deceased was
driving the motorcycle owned by the appellant in Misc. Appeal
-5 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
No. 594 of 2016. There is no dispute that his motorcycle was not
insured with any insurance company. There is no evidence on the
deceased possessing any license, though the learned counsel for the
appellants in Misc. Appeal No. 557 of 2016 submitted that the license
was untraceable, and the burden lay on the respondents to the claim
petition to show that the deceased had no license. Thirdly, the evidence
in the records suggests that this was a head-on collision between the
motorcycle and the insured truck.
15. The argument about the license urged on behalf of the appellant
in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016 cannot be accepted. Some evidence
had to be produced either by the claimants or the owner of the
motorcycle to show that the deceased driver indeed processed a
license at the time of the accident.
16. Considering the above circumstances, the finding of composite
negligence warrants no interference. However, the apportionment of
liability on an equal basis was not justified. Admittedly, this is a case of
a collision between a motorcycle, which is a much lighter and smaller
vehicle, and the insured truck, which is much bigger and heavier. In
such circumstances, the liability of the owner of the truck and,
consequently, the insurance company which had insured the truck
would be much greater.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the liability
will have to be apportioned in the percentage of 70% upon the owner of
the truck/its insurer and only 30% on the owner of the motorcycle, i.e.
the appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016. Besides, there is no
-6 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
challenge to the order of pay and recover made by the Tribunal qua the
owner of the truck and its insurer.
18. Therefore, Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016 is only partly allowed,
reducing the appellant's liability from 50% to 30% and correspondingly
increasing the truck owner's/its insurer's liability from 50% to 70%.
19. The next point for determination concerns the deceased's
quantum of income at the time of the accident.
20. There is evidence that the deceased was a mason. However,
there is no evidence about his income. The claimants did depose that
he was earning Rs. 9,000/- per month, but there was no evidence to
this effect. The Tribunal accepted that the deceased must have been
earning Rs. 200/- per day and, on that basis, determined the monthly
income at Rs. 6,000/- per month. The learned counsel for the Insurance
Company points out that even the minimum wage notification at the
time of the accident suggested that a mason's income would be Rs.
174 per day.
21. Considering the above material, there is no case made out to
interfere with the finding that the deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per
month at the time of the accident. This means that the deceased was
earning Rs. 72,000/- per annum. To this, a 40% increase is due
towards future prospects, and that comes to Rs. 28,800/-. This takes
the yearly income to Rs. 1,08,000/-.
22. From the above amount of Rs. 1,08,000/-, a deduction of 25% is
due, as this is the amount the deceased would have spent on himself.
This comes to Rs. 25,200/-. Thus, after this deduction, the deceased's
annual income would come to Rs. 75,600/-.
-7 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
23. Though the Tribunal has taken the multiplier as 17, the same, in
terms of the decision in the case of Sarla Verma (Supra) and National
Insurance Company Limited (supra) would be 16. Therefore, the
compensation towards dependency would come to Rs. 75,600/- x 16 =
12,09,600/-.
24. To the above amount, Rs. 40,000/- will have to be paid to each of
the claimants towards loss of consortium, consolidating this amount to
Rs. 1,60,000/-. Further, an amount of Rs.15,000/- will have to be paid
towards funeral expenses and another Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
estate.
25. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 13,99,600/-,
which can, rounded up to Rs. 14 lakhs
26. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum but only
from the date of the Award. In this matter, interest had to be awarded
from the date of the claim petition and not the date of the Award. To
that extent, also, interference is warranted.
27. Accordingly, Misc. Appeal No. 557 of 2016 is also partly allowed,
and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 9,33,000/- to Rs.
14,00,000/-, with interest @ 9% per annum to be computed from the
date of the claim petition till actual payment.
28. Accordingly, both these appeals are partly allowed and disposed
of by making the following order: -
(a) The compensation amount is enhanced from
Rs.9,33,000/- to Rs. 14,00,000/-;
(b) The above amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of the claim petition till actual payment.
-8 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
(c) The liability of the truck owner and insurer is enhanced
to 70% instead of 50%.
(d) The direction for pay and recovery is not interfered
with.
(e) The insurance company must now either pay the
differential amount, together with interest, to the
claimants within six weeks from today, or deposit the
amount in this Court within six weeks from today.
(f) Similarly, the owner of the motorcycle, i.e. the
appellant in Misc. Appeal No. 594 of 2016 must also pay
or deposit the amount he is now held liable within six
weeks from today.
(g) If the amount is deposited after giving due intimation to
the learned counsel for the claimants, then the
Registry will transfer this amount to the claimants' bank
accounts in terms of the identity and bank details to be
supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants.
(h) Under no circumstances should the amount be paid or
disbursed to the claimants otherwise than through the
normal banking channels.
29. There shall be no orders for costs. Pending Interlocutory
Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.
30. Before parting with this matter, I must record the fair approach of
Mrs Swati Shalini, the learned counsel who appeared for the Insurance
-9 of 10-
2026:JHHC:7973
Company. While putting forth the submissions on behalf of the
Insurance Company with all vehemence, not once did the counsel
forget her duty as an officer of this Court. This deserves to be
appreciated, and is hereby appreciated.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
March 20, 2026
N.A.F.R.
APK/VK
Uploaded on 23.03.2026
-10 of 10-
