2025:JHHC:21171 1 IN HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 186 of 2014 ----- 1. Smt. Suma Devi wife of Late Sita Ram Vishwakarma 2. Pintu Vishwakarma son of Late Sita Ram Vishwakarma 3. Tinku Vishwakarma son of Late Sita Ram Vishwakarma 4. Puja Kumari daughter of Late Sita Ram Vishwakarma 5. Sumitra Devi wife of Shri Mathura Vishwakarma The appellant nos. 2, 3 and 4 are minor as such they are bring represented through their mother and natural guardian/next friend, namely Smt. Suma Devi, the appellant no. 1 herein; All resident of village – Sikrudih, Post : Ghoranjee, P.S. Deori, District: Giridih (Jharkhand) … … … Appellants Versus 1. Jai Mangal Prasad Singh son of Lakhi Prasad Singh Resident of village : Tand Balidih, Jaridih Post and P.S. Jaridih District – Bokaro (Jharkhand) 2. Vir Kuwar Singh son of Late Chhotu Singh Resident of village – Sikrudih, Post : Ghoranjee P.S. Deori, District: Giridih (Jharkhand) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through the Branch Manager, Branch Office, Sector IV Post : Bokaro Steel City P.S. Sector IV, Bokaro, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) … … … Respondents --------- For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 09.06.2025 Pronounced on 31st July, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/ claimants and Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3- Insurance Company. 2. The appellants/ claimants have preferred instant appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the award dated 28.02.2014 passed in Title (M.V) suit No. - 26 of 2005 whereby the Claim Tribunal, 2025:JHHC:21171 2 Giridih has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% S.I from the date of award till its realization. 3. It is the case of the appellants/ claimants that at the time of accident, deceased was having monthly income of Rs. 6000/- as he was employed in welding works and as per the claim application, he was 30 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal admitted a monthly income of Rs. 4000/- as no documentary evidence was adduced into evidence with regard to the income of the deceased and by taking age of 30 years of the deceased as per the post-mortem report, the final compensation amount was computed Rs. 5,50,000 with interest @ 9% per annum. 4. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellants/ claimants that there is consistent oral evidence of witness nos.- 1, 2 and 3 that the deceased was earning Rs. 6000/- as a welder, but the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be only Rs. 4000/- as a Painter. Further, with regard to monthly income, it is argued that considering the nature of work, there could not have been any documentary evidence and the learned Tribunal erred in taking meager income of Rs. 4000/- of the deceased while assessing the compensation. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is not in consonance with the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 as loss of income under the head of Future Prospect has not been considered and further under the conventional head, only Rs. 10,000/- has been awarded. 6. It is very fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent - Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has erred while computing compensation by not applying multiplier of 17 as 2025:JHHC:21171 3 deceased was aged 30 years , in terms of ratio in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 7. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company also conceded that compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is not in terms of ratio laid down in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and Sarla verma (supra). Further, interest @ 9% simple interest awarded by the learned Tribunal is ought to be @ 6% simple interest from the date of the application till its realization. 8. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perusing the materials on record, it transpires that owner and driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle and Insurance Company has also been made party before learned tribunal. However, Insurance Company appeared but owner and driver did not choose to appear before learned tribunal and the learned tribunal proceeded ex parte against the respondents, owner and driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle. However, both the respondent’s owner and driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle have been made respondent nos. 1 and 2 before this court and despite valid service of notice, they failed to mark their appearance before this court and only Insurance Company marked his appearance being respondent no. 3. The learned tribunal failed to consider consistent oral evidence of witness nos.- 1, 2 and 3 stating therein that deceased was into welding work and erred considering that the deceased was painter. In absence of any documentary evidence with regard to the age of the deceased, this court considers the age of deceased as per the post mortem report i.e. 30 years, which has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. 9. As far as, income of deceased is concerned, the appellants/ claimants failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of their oral evidences against the claim of Rs. 6000/- as monthly income and 2025:JHHC:21171 4 learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 4500/-, which is meager. This court considering the nature of work i.e. welding work of the deceased and the deceased being only bread earner and ratio laid down in the case of Chameli Devi Vs. Jivrail Mian reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724(SC), considers the income of deceased as Rs. 5000/- per month . 10. Considering Rs. 5000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, being six members as dependents 1/4th as deduction towards personal and living expenses and 17 as multiplier as per Sarla verma (supra), addition of 40% as future prospect as deceased below 40 years of age and Rs. 70,000/- under the conventional head as per Pranay Sethi (Supra), the final compensation amount will work out as under:- Monthly Income Rs. 5000/- Personal & Living Expenses (Deduction) Sarla verma (supra) Rs. 5000×1/4 = Rs 1250 Rs.5000 – Rs. 1250 = Rs. 3750/- Annual Income Rs. 3750×12 = Rs. 45,000 Multiplier of 17 (30 years as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident) Sarla verma (supra) Rs. 45,000×17= Rs. 7,65,000/- Future Prospect – (40%) Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 7,65,000× 40% = Rs. 3,06,000/- Rs. 7,65,000+ 3,06,000= Rs. 10,71,000/- Conventional Head (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium) Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 70,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 10,71,000+ Rs.70,000 = Rs. 11,41,000 2025:JHHC:21171 5 11. As far as, interest part is concern, this court taking the legal proposition in the judgment rendered by the apex court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mannat Johal, reported in (2019) 15 SCC 260, is of considered view that Respondent- Insurance Company is liable to pay the aforesaid compensation amount along with interest @ 7.5% per annum simple interest, from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. 12. Further, record of Tribunal vide its order dated 04.09.2014, reveals that Cheque bearing no.- 2005 and 2006 dated 01.09.2014 for the sum of Rs. 5,24,681/- and Rs. 50,000/- has already been received by the appellants/ claimants. Therefore, the Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the remaining amount of award to the appellants/ claimants along with the interest @ 7.5% per annum simple interest, within a period of 45 days from today. 13. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 186 of 2014, is hereby, allowed. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 31st day of July, 2025 Abhishek/-A.F.R.