2025:JHHC:24805 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.590 of 2016 ------ Gayani Devi, wife of Bagla Prasad Sharma, resident of Village Dumardih, P.S. & District Gumla .... .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Sarita Verma, wife of Pintu Verma, resident of C/o Maa Bameshwari Transport Company, Ring Road No.2, Bhanpur, P.O. & P.S.Bhanpur, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Dhiraj Kumar, son of Kameshwar Yadav, resident of Station Road, Bhilai, P.O. & P.S. Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) 3. The Legal Department, Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Himalaya House, 5th Floor, 38 B.L.J. Nehru Road, P.O. & P.S. Nehru Road, Kolkata 4. National Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Officer, Gumla, Palkot Road, P.O. & P.S. Palkot, Gumla .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Ms. Adya Mishra, Advocate Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Res. No.3 : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate Mr. Kanishka Deo, Advocate For the Res. No.4 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate ------ Order No.12 / Dated : 21.08.2025 Claimant is in appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.A.C. Case No.52 of 2013 whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs.1,26,700/- has been awarded under Section 166 of the M.V. Act. Learned trial Court recorded a finding of fact that deceased- Trilok Prasad Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident while he was going with his friend Deepak Kumar Singh on motorcycle which met with an accident involving a truck bearing registration no.CG 04J 7111. It has been held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck and liability has been fixed on the insurer of the truck. 2. Compensation has been awarded taking monthly income of the deceased as Rs.2600/-, who was working as a private Munsi of the employer- Kishan Bricks. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of Rs.2600/- per month as per minimum wages for unskilled labour. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant that oral as well as documentary evidence were led on behalf of claimant regarding 2025:JHHC:24805 2 the monthly income of the deceased to be Rs.12,000/-. Three witnesses were examined and the witnesses have consistently deposed that the deceased was having an income of Rs.12,000/- per month. Further, the employer has been examined as A.W. 3- Jaglal Prasad and he has also deposed that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. In the absence of contrary evidence, it was not open to the Tribunal to have discarded oral and documentary evidence regarding income of the deceased. 4. Learned counsel on behalf of Insurance Company submits that learned Tribunal has assigned sufficient reason for discarding testimony regarding evidence of monthly income of Rs.12,000/-. Among reasons for not accepting the income, was that A.W. 3 has deposed in the cross- examination that acquaintance roll was not maintained and no document was produced regarding payment of monthly income of Rs.12,000/- to the deceased. The only document that was produced was post-accident certificate of his income. 5. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, it is evident that occupation of the deceased that he was working as Munsi in brick kiln, has remained un-demolished. In this view of matter, the assessment of income by taking the minimum wage of an unskilled labour on the face of it, appears to be wrong. Considering the occupation of the deceased as a Munsi in the brick kiln, a fair assessment of his income should be Rs.6000/-. 6. In this case, FIR was lodged against driver of the truck, charge sheet was also filed against him, and oral evidence has also been deposed that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the truck. In this view of matter, finding that it was a case of contributory negligence, is not tenable. 7. Taking the age of the deceased to be 25 years and monthly income of Rs.6000/-, the dependency will be 50% as he was a bachelor at the time of accident and multiplier will be 17 not be as per age of the parents, but of the deceased as per the ratio laid down in Sarla Verma & Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and future prospect 40%, conventional head 77,000/-, the final compensation amount will work 2025:JHHC:24805 3 out as under: - Annual Income Rs.6000 x 12 Rs.72,000/- Annual dependency after deducting 50% on the living and personal expenses of the deceased Rs.36,000/- Loss of dependency on taking a multiplier of 17 Rs.6,12,000/- Future prospect @ 40% Rs.2,44,800/- Conventional head Rs.77,000/- Total Rs.9,33,800/- 8. It goes without saying that the amount which has been earlier paid to the claimants, will be deducted from the final compensation amount. 9. Insurance Company is directed to make full and final payment of the compensation amount of Rs.9,33,800/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. Amount to be deposited within one month from the date of order before the learned Tribunal and the amount shall be disbursed by the Tribunal to the claimants as per the apportionment of share decided by it. Insurance Company shall have right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. 10. Statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of filing of appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted to the final compensation amount to be paid to the claimant. Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit