2025:JHHC:21172 1 HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 256 of 2012 ----- 1. Anarwa Devi wife of Late Manager Bharti 2. Lakshminiya Kumari daughter of Late Manager Bharti 3. Fulwa Kumari daughter of Late Manager Bharti 4. Aditya Bharti son of Late Manager Bharti 5. Bhagiya Devi wife of Rapati Bharti @ Pati Bhujan Claimant nos. 2 and 4 are minor represented through their mother claimant no. 1 and all resident of village Bharhi, P.O. & P.S. Pratappur, District Chatra, Jharkhand … … … Appellants 1. Himanshu Kumar Das son of Jameshwar Das, resident of village Baula Bandha, Nachuni, Khurda – 752 034 (Orissa) 2. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Reliance Centre- 19, Walchand- Harichand Marg, Ballard Estate, Mumbai- 400038 … … … Respondents --------- For the Appellants :Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent :Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate (Insurance Company) --------- P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI JUDGMENT C.A.V. on 10.07.2025 Pronounced on 31st July, 2025 1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/ claimants and Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2- Insurance Company. 2. The appellants/ claimants have preferred instant appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded dated 28th September, 2012 passed in Claim case No. 14 of 2007 whereby the Claim Tribunal, 2025:JHHC:21172 2 Chatra has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs 3,90,000/- along with interest @ 7% 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. 4,500/- as he was labourer and as per the claim application, he was 35 years of age at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal admitted a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- as no documentary evidence was adduced during enquiry with regard to the income of the deceased and by taking age of 35 years of the deceased as per the post-mortem report, the final compensation amount was computed to the tune of Rs. 3,90,000 with interest @ 7% 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 to 3 that the deceased was earning Rs. 4,500 as a labourer, but the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased to be only Rs. 3,000/-.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. 3,000/- 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 the 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. 6,000/- has been awarded. 2025:JHHC:21172 3 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent- Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal has erred while computing compensation by not making 1/4th deduction under Personal and Living expenses as there are five dependents, in terms of ratio in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and perusing the materials on record, it transpires that owner of the offending vehicle and Insurance Company has also been made party before learned tribunal but they chose not to appear before the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal proceeded ex parte against the respondents. However, both the respondents have been made party before this court and only Insurance Company marked his appearance being respondent no. 2 as the learned Tribunal has saddled the liability solely on the Insurance Company. It is not in dispute that deceased was working as labourer. 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. 38 years, which has been rightly taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. 8. 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 4,500 as monthly income and learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of the deceased as Rs 3,000/-. This court considering deceased being labourer and is of opinion that learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of deceased as Rs. 100/- per day as labourer, amounting to Rs 3,000/- per month, for the year 2007. 2025:JHHC:21172 4 9. Considering Rs. 3,000/- as the monthly income of the deceased, being five members as dependents 1/4th as deduction towards personal and living expenses and 15 as multiplier as per Sarla verma (supra), addition of 40% as future prospect as deceased being Labourer and 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. 3000/- Personal & Living Expenses (Deduction) Sarla verma (supra) Rs. 3000×1/4 = 750 Rs.3000 – Rs. 750 = Rs. 2,250/- Annual Income Rs. 2,250×12 = Rs. 27,000 Multiplier of 15 (38 years as the age of the deceased at the time of the accident) Sarla verma (supra) Rs. 27,000 ×15= Rs. 4,05,000/- Future Prospect – (40%) Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 4,05,000 × 40% = Rs. 1,62,000/- Rs. 4,05,000 + 1,62,000 = Rs. 5,67,000/- Conventional Head (Loss of Estate, Funeral Expenses and Loss of Consortium) Pranay Sethi (Supra) Rs. 70,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 5,67,000+ Rs.70,000 = Rs. 6,37,000/- 10. 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 2025:JHHC:21172 5 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. 11. Further, record of Tribunal reveals that five Cheques dated 25.09.2018 for the sum of Rs. 4, 85,735 /- has already been received by the appellants/ claimants on 27.05.2016. 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. 12. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Appeal being M.A. No. 256 of 2012, is hereby, allowed. (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 31st day of July, 2025 Abhishek/- A.F.R.