[2025:JHHC:19447] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 729 of 2017 1. Sansoti Devi, wife of Late Gobardhan Roy. 2. Haradhan Roy 3. Jagarnath Roy (minor). 4. Mahadeo Roy (minor). 5. Chandan Roy (minor). Sl.Nos. 2 to 5, sons of Late Gobardhan Roy. 6. Bhanu Kumari (minor), daughter of Late Gobardhan Roy. Appellant Nos. 3 to 6 are minors, hence represented through their natural guardian mother appellant no. 1. Sl. Nos. 1 to 6, all resident of Village Barajamua, Post Office Govindpur, Police Station Govindpur (Barwadda), District Dhanbad. ..... … Appellant Versus 1. Divisional Manager M/S National Insurance Company, Limited, at BP Agarwal Building Dhansar, Post Office and Police Station Dhansar, District Dhanbad. 2. Alok Tiwary, son of Haradhan Tiwary, resident of M.S.B Road Raniganj, Post Office and Police Station Raniganj, District Burdhaman. 3. I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, APJ House, 4th floor Block C, Park Street Kolkata, P.O & P.S Park Street, District Hoogly. 4. Adarsh Agarwal, son of not known, resident of Dhaiya, P.O.-I.S.M., P.S. and District-Dhanbad. ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate. For the Resp. No. 1 : Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, Advocate. For the Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate. [2025:JHHC:19447] -2- ------ 13/ 17.07.2025 Heard Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra and Mr. Bibhash Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respective insurance companies. 2. The dispute is between the claimants and the insurance companies and in the clear terms, the liabilities have not been fastened upon the owners of the vehicles in question, in view of that this appeal is being disposed of in absence of the owners of the vehicles in question. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment / award dated 07.02.2017, passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 294 of 2009, the learned District Judge-XIII-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad and for the enhancement of the award. 4. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellants are the claimants and the learned tribunal by the impugned award has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,12,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum and direction has been issued to pay the entire amount within sixty days. He submits that the income of the deceased has not been properly considered by the learned tribunal, as he was doing the business of vegetable and selling and he was also having own land, where he used to develop the vegetables. He further submits that the future prospect to the tune of 40% is not provided 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 submits that under the conventional head, the learned tribunal has directed to pay only Rs. 10,000/- that is also required to be enhanced in view of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra). He further submits that in [2025:JHHC:19447] -3- view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharampal and Others versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 208, the interest should be @ 7.5%, whereas the learned tribunal has awarded the same @ 6%. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned award may kindly be modified. 5. Mr. Bibhash Sinha and Mr. Niraj Narayan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respective insurance companies jointly opposed the prayer and submit that awarded amount has already been deposited by the insurance companies, which has also been disbursed to the claimants. They submit that there is no illegality in the award and the learned tribunal has rightly passed the said award. 6. From the award, it transpires that the learned tribunal has calculated the income of the deceased as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The evidence has led before the learned tribunal by way of producing the rent receipt of the land, which suggests that vegetable farming was made by the deceased and the evidence was also led that he was selling the vegetables in the market and if such a situation is there, in the current scenario and also at the time of accident in the year 2008, by way of such business, monthly income of Rs. 5,000/- cannot be ruled out. As such, the court finds that the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 5,000/- in place of Rs. 3,000/-. 7. The future prospect has not been provided by the learned tribunal to the tune of 40% in light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), 40% is required to be added in the award. Further in light of the judgment of Pranay Sethi (Supra), in the conventional head, [2025:JHHC:19447] -4- Rs. 70,000/- plus 10% for every three years is required to be added, as this is not done by the learned tribunal, as such, the award is required to be modified on that aspect. In light of the judgment in the case of Dharampal (Supra), the interest should be @ 7.5% in place of @ 6%. 8. It has been pointed out that there were six dependents upon the deceased and in light of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma & Ors. Versus Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, the deduction should be 1/4th, whereas the learned tribunal has directed to deduct 1/5th, in view of that, it is required to be replaced with 1/4th in place of 1/5th. 9. Since the deceased was 38 years of age, as such, the multiplier should be 15 and the learned tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15. 10. In view of the above, the judgment / award dated 07.02.2017, passed in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 294 of 2009, the learned District Judge-XIII-cum-M.A.C.T., Dhanbad, is modified to the effect that the monthly income of the deceased should be Rs. 5,000/- in place of Rs. 3,000/-, the future prospect will be to the tune of 40%, under the conventional head, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- with 10% enhancement for every three years and further interest will be @ 7.5% in place of @ 6% and also the deduction should be 1/4th in place of 1/5th. 11. The insurance companies shall deposit the difference of amount before the learned tribunal within four weeks from today. The amount already received by the claimants shall be deducted and [2025:JHHC:19447] -5- thereafter the modified amount will be paid to the claimants in terms of this order. 12. This appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/- [A.F.R.]