-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 676 of 2017 Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd, Ist Floor, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur. District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand, Insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.JH-05A- 9598/M/13, represented through its Dy. Manager and Incharge T.P. Hub, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Ranchi Division, Sethi Corporate, 2nd Floor, P.P. Compound P.O. and P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ..... … Appellant Versus 1. Puja Devi, aged about 25 years, wife of Late Rajesh Kumar Sah, by faith Hindu, by occupation Household affairs; 2. Anuska Kumari, aged about 3 years (minor) D/o Late Rajesh Kumar Sah, applicant No.2 is minor, represented through her mother and natural guardian applicant No.1/respondent No.1, Both are resident of H.No.16, Patel Nagar, Road No.1, Chhota Gobindpur, P.O. and P.S. Gobindpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. 3. Divisional Manager, M/s Tata Motors Company Limited of Telco Colony, Telco, P.O. and P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District Singhbhum East, Jharkhand, owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.JH-05A-9598/M/13. 4. Badam Devi, aged about 65 years, wife of Udeshwar Prasad Sah, mother of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Sah, 5. Udeshwar Prasad Sah, aged about 70 years, son of Late Lalji Sah, father of the deceased Rajesh Kumar Sah, -2- Both are resident of Qtr. No.240/2/2, Gobindpur Housing Colony, Chota Gobindpur, P.O. and P.S. Gobindpur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. Proforma Defendant No.3/respondent No.4 is mother of the deceased and Proforma Defendant No.4/Respondent No.5 is father of the deceased and they are also necessary parties to the case. ..... … Respondents with C.O. No. 07 of 2020 1. Puja Devi (Female aged about 31 years) wife of late Rajesh Kumar Sah 2. Anushka Kumari (Female Aged about 09 years) daughter of Late Rajesh Kumar Sah The cross objector No. 2 is at present minor as such she is being represented through her mother and natural guardian i.e. the cross objector no. 1 here in (Puja Devi); All residents of House no. 16, Patel Nagar, Road no. 1 Chhota Govindpur, Post and P.S. Govindpur, Town-Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum. ..... … Cross Objectors Versus 1. Divisional Manager, M/S Tata Motors Company Limited Telco Colony, Telco, Post and P.S. Telco, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand). 2. Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Limited, 1st Floor, Kamani Centre, Bistupur, Post and P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum. 3. Badam Devi wife of Udeshwar Prasad Sah and mother of Late Rajesh Kumar Sah -3- 4. Udeshwar Prasad Sah son of late Lalji Sah And father of late Rajesh Kumar Sah Both residing at Qr. No. 240/2-2, Govindpur Housing Colony, Chhota Govindpur, Post and P.S. Govindpur, Jamshedpur, District-East Singhbhum. ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Appellant : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate. (in M.A. No. 676 of 2017) For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate. (in C.O. No. 07 of 2020) For the Resp. Nos. 1,2, 4 & 5: Mr. A.K. Lall, Advocate. (in M.A. No. 676 of 2017) For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Lall, Advocate. (in C.O. No. 07 of 2020) For the Resp. No. 3 & Resp. No. 1 : Mr. D.K. Pathak, Advocate (in both the cases) ------ 11/ 26.03.2025 Heard Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for respondent No. 2 in C.O. No. 07 of 2020, Mr. A.K. Lall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for the cross objectors in C.O. No. 07 of 2020 and Mr. D.K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for M/s Tata Motors Company Limited in both the cases. 2. M.A. No. 676 of 2017 has been filed by the insurance company for setting aside the judgment / award dated 30.05.2017, passed in Compensation Case No. 199 of 2014, by the learned District Judge-III, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur. 3. C.O. No. 07 of 2020 has been filed by the claimants, arising out of the same judgment / award for enhancement of the awarded amount. 4. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for respondent No. 2 in C.O. No. 07 of 2020 submits that M.A. No. 676 of 2017 has been filed on the -4- ground that the deduction of 1/4th amount for the personal expenses and awarding the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- on conventional head in place of Rs. 70,000/- is not in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 and for the cross objectors in C.O. No. 07 of 2020 submits that in spite of the proof of income, which has been marked as Exhibit-4 and 4/1, the learned court has not awarded the amount on the future prospect, in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that so far as conventional head is concerned, in every three years, 10% is required to be added in the conventional head. 6. In view of the above submissions of the parties, the court has gone through the materials available on record. It transpires from the judgment / award dated 30.05.2017 that Golmuri P.S. Case No.148 of 2013, dated 21.6.2013 was registered against the driver of Chesis No. JH-05A-9598, under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of IPC. It was further stated that on 21.6.2013 at about 11:30 AM, deceased Rajesh Kumar Sah was going from his home Govindpur to Sakchi by Motorcycle bearing registration No. JH-05N-8740 and reached near G.T. Hostel met with a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Chasis) bearing Regd. No. JH-05A-9598/M/13 by its driver. The said Chasis bearing no. JH-05/9598/M/13 was coming from same direction, behind the deceased rashly and negligently with high speed and due to that said chasis driver lost his control over the Chasis and hit the deceased motorcycle from his back side, due to that accident Rajesh Kumar -5- Sah had sustained grievous injuries and he fell down on the road and with the help of local people of the same locality have taken him to T.M.H., Bistupur hospital for his treatment, but the doctors declared him dead. In these backgrounds, the claim case was filed and the learned tribunal has decided the same and directed to pay a sum of Rs. 21,15,000/- along with the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till the actual payment within thirty days. It was further ordered that if the amount has already been paid to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act as ad- interim compensation, that should be deducted from the aforementioned awarded amount. 7. So far as the argument of Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in M.A. No. 676 of 2017 with regard to deduction of 1/4th is concerned, this court finds that the learned tribunal found that five persons are dependents upon the deceased, in view of that the learned tribunal has deducted the 1/4th from the income. Further the contention of Mr. Jha is that the father of the deceased was not dependent, however, it was not proved by the insurance company before the learned tribunal, in view of his such submission, the onus lies upon the insurance company to prove that fact, as such, the argument of Mr. Jha is not being accepted by this court. So far as conventional head is concerned, this court finds that the learned tribunal has directed to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- for loss of consortium to widow, Rs. 20,000/- for funeral expense and Rs. 80,000/- for loss of estate, love and affection. 8. It appears that the award on the part of conventional head is not in accordance with the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (Supra) and it should be Rs. 70,000/-, -6- however, 10% can be added further after every three years, that is the direction in that case. In view of that that part of the award is modified to the effect that the conventional head should be Rs. 70,000/- plus 10% has to be added in every three years and that will be added till the satisfying the award. Accordingly, this amount will be recalculated by the learned tribunal. 9. So far as the argument of Mr. Lall, learned counsel of adding 40% on the future prospect is concerned, this court finds force in the said submission in light of the discussions made in the award, as in the income tax return, which was marked as Exhibits-4 and 4/1, the learned court has found that the deceased earning was Rs. 1,72,000/- per annum, which clearly suggests that the deceased was earning and in light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), claimants are entitled for 40% of future prospect. In view of that the award is further modified to that effect and it will be calculated on 40% on the future prospect, in light of the award. 10. It has been pointed out that the amount in question has already been deposited before the learned court, in view of that if the amount is not paid, the same will be disbursed taking into account the modified award in view of this order and if the amount is disbursed in favour of the claimants, in view of the modification, it shall be recalculated to the effect on the point of conventional head and adding of future prospect and the 40% future prospect shall also carry interest @ 6% per annum, in light of the award from the date of filing of the claim application. 11. 11. The statutory amount deposited before this court shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal, which will be utilized in satisfying the award and if any excess amount will be found, that will -7- be paid to the insurance company. 12. In view of the above, the aforesaid appeal and cross objection are allowed in part and disposed of in view of the above terms. 13. Let the trial court records be sent back to the learned tribunal. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]