[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
The Branch Manager vs Deventi Orain on 26 March, 2026
2026:JHHC:8678
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Misc. Appeal No. 410 of 2017
The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hotel
Novelty, Powerganj Chowk, Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga
through its legal cell, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-
Ranchi. ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. Deventi Orain, Aged about 27 years, Wife of Late Jitram Oraon.
2. Ankit Oraon, Aged about 7 years, Son of Late Jitram Oraon.
3. Aryan Oraon, Aged about 4 years, Son of Late Jitram Oraon.
4. Etava Oraon, Aged about 61 years, Son of Late Jora Oraon.
5. Mango Orain, Aged about 55 years, Wife of Etava Oraon.
2 & 3 being minor are represented through their mother and natural
guardian, Deventi Orain, Respondent No.1.
All resident of Village- Badla Chatakpur, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha,
District- Lohardaga.
6. Mr. Madan Mahto, Son of Late Loharmai Mahto, Resident of Village-
Badla, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha, District- Simdega.
... Respondents.
With
Cross Objection No. 11 of 2022
1. Deventi Orain, aged about 32 years, wife of Late Jitram Oraon.
2. Ankit Oraon, aged about 12 years, son of Late Jitram Oraon.
3. Aryan Oraon, aged about 9 years, son of Late Jitram Oraon.
4. Etava Oraon, aged about 66 years, son of Late Jora Oraon.
5. Mango Orain, aged about 60 years, wife of Etava Oraon.
2 & 3 being minor are represented through their mother and natural
guardian, Deventi Orain, Respondent No.1.
All resident of Village- Badla Chatakpur, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha,
District- Lohardaga. .. Cross Objectors
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hotel
Novelty, Powerganj, P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga, through its Legal
Cell, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi.
2. Mr. Madan Mahto, son of Late Loharmai Mahto, Resident of Village-
Badla, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha, District- Simdega.
... ... Respondents.
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
---------
For the Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. Nos.1 to 5: Mrs. Rakhi Rani Advocate.
For Resp. No. 6: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate.
[in Misc. Appeal No. 410 of 2017]
-1 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
For the C.O.: Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate
For Resp. No.1: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.2: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
[in Cross Objection No. 11 of 2022]
---------
15/Dated: 26.03.2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This Appeal and Cross Objection are directed against the
judgment and Award dated 08.02.2017 in Compensation Claim Case
No. 49 of 2012 made by Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal,
Lohardaga (Tribunal).
3. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, and the Cross
Objection has been filed by the claimants.
4. Mr Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company submitted that the deceased Jitram Oraon was only a
gratuitous passenger on the insured tractor. He submitted that the
owner of the tractor i.e. the 6th respondent, had not paid any premium to
cover a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the appellant Insurance
Company should not have been made liable for payment of any
compensation to the claimants.
5. Mr Manish Kumar further submitted that the deceased died on
account of his own negligence. This, he submitted, was yet another
reason why the claim petition should have been dismissed.
6. Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel for the tractor owner,
submitted that the deceased was a coolie/loader employed by the
owner for which he was paid Rs. 125/- per day. He therefore submitted
that the deceased could not be regarded as a gratuitous passenger. He
submitted that the Tribunal has considered this aspect and correctly
-2 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
held the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation
amount.
7. Mrs Rakhi Rani, the learned counsel for the claimants, while
contesting the contentions on behalf of the Insurer, submitted that the
claimants' cross-objection should be allowed, as compensation of
Rs. 40,000/- each was required to be paid to the claimants, given the
law laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs
Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. She
submitted that in terms of National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 compensation towards
funeral expenses and loss of estate should have been Rs. 30,000/-.
8. Mrs Rakhi Rani further relied upon Sarla Verma (Smt) and
others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC
121 to submit that since the deceased was 30 years old, the multiplier
applicable should have been 17 and not 16. She submitted that the
annual income should have been increased by 40% to reflect future
prospects, not merely 30%. She submitted that the interest awarded
was meagre and should have been awarded from the date of the claim
petition.
9. The rival contentions now fall for my determination.
10. Based on the pleadings and the contentions, the following points
arise for determination in this Appeal and Cross Objection: -
(a) Whether, the deceased, was merely a gratuitous
passenger in the insured tractor, thereby, relieving the
appellant Insurance Company of any liability to pay the
compensation amount?
-3 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
(b) Whether the deceased was himself negligent, and
therefore responsible for the accidental death?
(c) Is the compensation determined by the Tribunal just and
proper?
(d) Should the interest be enhanced and made payable from
the date of the claim petition?
11. So far as the first point for determination is concerned, the record
shows that the appellant Insurance Company, in its written statement,
had specifically raised the issue of the deceased allegedly being a
gratuitous passenger in the insured tractor. Even though no formal
issue appears to have been framed by the Tribunal, the issue of the
status of the deceased has been considered by the Tribunal, given the
evidence laid on behalf of the claimants to the effect that the deceased
was not a gratuitous passenger, but a coolie/labourer engaged by the
owner who worked on the tractor.
12. CW 1 and CW 2, who were the co-acquaintances of the
deceased, deposed that the deceased worked as a coolie/labourer for
the owner and on the fateful day, he had boarded the tractor to load
bricks. They have also deposed to the deceased's earnings being
Rs. 6,000/- per month. CW 3, the widow of the deceased, also testified
to her husband being a labourer. CW 4, the father of the deceased, also
deposed that the deceased worked as a coolie on the tractor, which
was insured, and earned Rs 6,000/- per month from his labour.
13. The appellant Insurance Company has led no evidence to prove
that the deceased was indeed a gratuitous passenger. Therefore,
considering the overwhelming evidence on record, the appellant
-4 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
Insurance Company's case about the deceased being a gratuitous
passenger cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the first point for
determination is decided against the appellant Insurance Company.
14. Insofar as the second point for determination is concerned, the
evidence does not support the contention that the deceased was
negligent and, therefore, responsible for the accident in which he died.
This ground now raised in the appeal has no merit.
15. Insofar as the third point for determination is concerned, the
impugned Award does indicate that the Tribunal has awarded the
claimants a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards consortium. In
terms of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra),
National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Sarla Verma
(supra), the compensation towards the consortium should have been
Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant. Therefore, compensation towards the
consortium should have been Rs. 2,00,000/- and not merely Rs.
50,000/-.
16. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- towards
funeral expenses and failed to make any award towards loss of estate.
In terms of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Sarla
Verma (supra), compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate
and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses should have been awarded.
17. The Tribunal has also added 30% towards future prospects.
However, since the evidence on records suggests that the deceased
was 33 years old, 40% should have been added towards future
prospects.
-5 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
18. As regards, the multiplier, though, the post-mortem report refers
to the age of the deceased as 30 years, the evidence on record
establishes that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of his
demise. The learned counsel for the claimants' states that the
witnesses i.e. the widow and the father who deposed to the deceased
being 33 years old, are illiterate and therefore, it would be safer to go by
the age mentioned in the post-mortem report.
19. The above contention cannot be accepted. Even the age
mentioned in the post-mortem report is not based on any ossification
test or any other scientific/forensic test. Even that age is possibly the
result of information provided to the doctors who prepared the post-
mortem report. Since the widow and the father have deposed that the
deceased was 33 years old at the time of the accident, the Tribunal was
justified accepting that evidence and determining the compensation.
The correct multiplier, therefore, would be 16 and not 17.
20. Based on the above, the compensation will have to be
determined as follows: -
(A) The income of the deceased at the time of the accident was
Rs. 6,000/- per month.
(B) Addition of 40% due to future prospect, i.e., Rs. 6,000 +
2,400 = Rs. 8,400/- per month.
(C) Loss of dependency per annum works out to Rs. 8,400 x 12
= Rs. 1,00,800/-.
(D) 1/4th of the amount to be deducted, as there were 5
claimants, i.e., Rs. 1,00,800 - 25,200 = Rs. 75,600/-.
-6 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
(E) The multiplier to be applied in this case is 16, i.e.,
Rs. 75,600 x 16 = Rs. 12,09,600/-.
(F) The compensation towards the consortium, i.e.,
Rs. 12,09,600 + 2,00,000 = Rs. 14,09,600/-.
(G) Compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate
Rs. 30,000/-, i.e., Rs. 14,39,600/-.
21. Therefore, for the above reasons, the just compensation amount
would have to be enhanced from Rs. 11,83,200/- to Rs. 14,39,600/-.
22. Insofar as the fourth point for determination is concerned, the
Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the
Award till realisation. Though the interest rate need not be increased, this
interest should have been awarded from the date of the claim petition and
not just from the date of the Award.
23. Accordingly, this Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of by
determining the compensation at Rs. 14,39,600/- together with interest at
the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the
realisation of this amount. The amount paid by the Insurance Company
towards no-fault liability, Rs. 6,00,000/- in the interim and the statutory
deposit of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of institution of the appeal shall be
adjusted, and the balance amount shall be deposited in this Court with
due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants within two months
from today. Upon deposit, the Registry will transfer this amount to the
claimants' bank accounts. The learned counsel for the claimants states
that she will furnish the claimants' identity and bank details to the Registry
at the earliest to facilitate the transfer.
-7 of 8-
2026:JHHC:8678
24. The Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of without any
order for costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive
and are disposed of.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
March 26, 2026
N.A.F.R.
VK/Amar
Uploaded on 30.03.2026
-8 of 8-
