2025:JHHC:23971 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No.431 of 2023 ------ 1. Pradip Kumar Tiwari, son of Indra Narayan Tiwari 2. Kritika Tiwari, daughter of Pradip Kumar Tiwari 3. Rishav Tiwari, son of Pradip Kumar Tiwari Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are minors and are being represented through their natural guardian father and appellant no.1 All are resident of Coal Board Colony, Matkuriya, P.O. Dhanbad, P.S. Bankmore, District Dhanbad .... .... …. Appellants Versus 1. Bal Kishun Vishwakarma, son of Late Badho Vishwakarma, resident of Karali, P.O. Keredari, P.S. Keredari, District Hazaribag (Jharkhand) 2. M/s Bajaj Allianz Insurance General Insurance Company Limited, The Legal Manager, through its Legal Manager, at 804, 8th Floor, Mahavir Tower, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O., P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi .... .... .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Appellants : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate For the Res. No.1 : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate ------ Order No.04 / Dated : 14.08.2025 I.A. No.13208 of 2024 Heard both sides in I.A. No.13208 of 2024 which has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 157 days in preferring the instant miscellaneous appeal. Considering the grounds taken, delay in filing the appeal, is hereby, condoned and I.A. No.13208 of 2024 is allowed. Misc. Appeal No.431 of 2023 Claimants are before this Court for enhancement of compensation of Rs.12,45,142/- awarded in favour of claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, who happens to be the wife of claimant no.1 and the mother of claimant nos.2 and 3. Learned Tribunal assessed the income of deceased to be Rs.6171.98 which was applicable for minimum wage for unskilled worker. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of appellants that the deceased was a teacher which has come in the testimony of P.W. 1. 3. Learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as there is no written document 2025:JHHC:23971 2 regarding monthly income of the deceased. Further, no document has been filed with regard to educational qualification of the deceased, and also there is no oral evidence except for P.W. 1 regarding the claim that the deceased was having a monthly income from tuition of Rs.8000-10,000/-. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, in view of absence of any evidence regarding income from tuition or about her educational qualification, the claim that the deceased was having a monthly income of Rs.8000-10,000/- by way of private tuition, is not sustainable. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. So far the conventional head is concerned, the amount awarded is Rs.70,000/- which is to be enhanced as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, by 10% after every three years, therefore, the said amount will work out to be Rs.77,000/- instead of Rs.70,000/- Award only for conventional head is modified to that extent. Insurance Company is accordingly directed to pay the balance of Rs 7000/- with interest of 7.5% from the time of filing of the claim application to the claimants. Amount to be deposited with MACT within a month of this order which will be disbursed to the claimants without any further delay. Miscellaneous Appeal stands dismissed with the above modification. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anit