( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 253 of 2020 National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Sector-IV, City Centre, 1st Floor, C-27, Sheela Sadan, P.O &P.S Sector- IV Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, through its Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, P.O Ranchi University P.S Kotwali, District Ranchi (Insurer of Truck No. JH-09 AL- 8659) … Appellant Versus 1. Kiran Kumari, Daughter of late Saryu Mahto @ Sarju Mahto, now aged about 22 years. 2. Ravi Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, now aged about 20 years. 3. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, Now aged about 16 years. All resident of Village- Telo (West), Tola- Fulsodih, P.O. Telo, P.S. Chandrpura, District- Bokaro. 4. Dharmdeo Singh, Son of Durga Prasad Singh, Resident of Telgaria More, Plot No. 1246, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro, At Present Resident of Village- Gorabali, 42E, Near Dalmia Cement, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro. (Owner of Truck No. JH-09AL-8659 being Proprietor of Sri Durga Transport). 5. Dilip Kumar Sao @ Dilip Sah, S/o Ganesh Sah, Resident of C/o Dharmdeo Singh (O.P. No. 1/ Respondent No. 4) Village- Gorabali, 42E, Near Dalmia Cement, PO & PS Balidih, District Bokaro (Driver of Truck No.JH-09 AL- 8659 … Respondents with M.A. No. 167 of 2020 1. Kiran Kumari, Daughter of late Saryu Mahto @ Sarju Mahto, now aged about 24 years. 2. Ravi Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, now aged about 22 years. 3. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, Now aged about 18 years. All resident of Village- Telo (West), Tola- Fulsodih, P.O. Telo, P.S. Chandrpura, District- Bokaro., Jharkhand …Appellants Versus 1. Dharmdeo Singh son of Durga Prasad Singh Resident of-village - Telgaria More, Plot no. 1246,Post and P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand)At Present at:VillageGorabali, 42E, near Dalmia Cement Post and P.S. Balidih, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) 2. Dilip Kumar Sao @ Dilip Sah son of Ganesh Sah C/o Dharmdeo Singh (O.P. no. 1) Village - Gorabali, 42E, near Dalmia Cement Post and P.S. Balidih, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd, Through its Divisional Manager Sector-IV, City Centre, 1st. Floor, C-27, Sheela Sadan,Post and P.S. Bokaro Steel city, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) ……Respondents with M.A. No. 168 of 2020 ( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 2 1. Kiran Kumari, Daughter of late Saryu Mahto @ Sarju Mahto, now aged about 24 years. 2. Ravi Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, now aged about 22 years. 3. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, Now aged about 16 years. All resident of Village- Telo (West), Tola- Fulsodih, P.O. Telo, P.S. Chandrapura, District- Bokaro., Jharkhand ……Appellants Versus 1. Dharmdeo Singh son of Durga Prasad Singh Resident of-village - Telgaria More, Plot no. 1246,Post and P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand)At Present at:VillageGorabali, 42E, near Dalmia Cement Post and P.S. Balidih, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) 2. Dilip Kumar Sao @ Dilip Sah son of Ganesh Sah C/o Dharmdeo Singh (O.P. no. 1) Village - Gorabali, 42E, near Dalmia Cement Post and P.S. Balidih, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd, Through its Divisional Manager Sector-IV, City Centre, 1stFloor, C-27, Sheela Sadan,Post and P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District - Bokaro (Jharkhand) …..Respondents with MA No. 250 of 2020 1. National Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, Sector-IV, City Centre, 1st Floor, C-27, Sheela Sadan, P.O &P.S Sector- IV Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro, through its Jharkhand Legal Cell, Kutchery Road, P.O Ranchi University P.S Kotwali, District Ranchi( Insurer of Truck No. JH-09 AL- 8659) … Appellant Versus 1. Kiran Kumari, Daughter of late Saryu Mahto @ Sarju Mahto, now aged about 22 years. 2. Ravi Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, now aged about 20 years. 3. Ajit Kumar, Son of Late Saryu Mahto @Sarju Mahto, Now aged about 16 years. All resident of Village- Telo (West), Tola- Fulsodih, P.O. Telo, P.S. Chandrpura, District- Bokaro. 4. Dharmdeo Singh, Son of Durga Prasad Singh, Resident of Telgaria More, Plot No. 1246, P.O. & P.S. Chas, District-Bokaro, At Present Resident of Village- Gorabali, 42E, Near Dalmia Cement, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, District- Bokaro. (Owner of Truck No. JH-09AL-8659 being Proprietor of Sri Durga Transport). 5. Dilip Kumar Sao @ Dilip Sah, s/o Ganesh Sah, Resident of C/o Dharmdeo Singh (O.P. No. 1/ Respondent No. 4) Village- Gorabali, 42E, Near Dalmia Cement, PO & PS Balidih, District Bokaro (Driver of Truck No.JH-09 AL- 8659) … Respondents ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ In M.A. No.253 of 2020 For the Appellant : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Mishra, Advocate ( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 3 For the Respondents :Mr.Arvind Kr Lall, Advocate Mr. Shant Kumar, Advocate In M.A. No.167 of 2020 For the Appellants : Mr.Arvind Kr Lall, Advocate Mr. Shant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate In M.A. No.168 of 2020 For the Appellants : Mr.Arvind Kr Lall, Advocate Mr. Shant Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amaresh Kumar, Advocate In M.A. No.250 of 2020 For the Appellants : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate Mr. Amit Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents :Mr.Arvind Kr Lall, Advocate Mr. Shant Kumar, Advocate Mr. Chetan K. Nagesh, Advocate …...... Order No. 08/29.10.2025 All these appeals arise out of the same accident in which separate claim cases were preferred and have been disposed of by the learned Tribunal by two separate judgment and award of compensation. 2. M.A. No. 167 of 2020 and M.A. No. 168 of 2020 is preferred by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas, M.A. No. 253 of 2020 and M.A. No. 250 of 2020 have been preferred by the Insurance-Company against the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal. Since all these appeals involve almost common questions of fact and law, therefore,it has been heard and will be disposed of by common order. 3. It is not in dispute that Manju Devi and her husband Saryu Mahto died in a motor vehicle accident on 09.09.2018 while they were going on a motor cycle of their relative bearing registration no. JH- 02G-3054. The motor cycle met with an accident with the truck bearing registration no. JH-09AL-8659, in which both of them sustained fatal injuries and died. 4. The FIR (Exhibit-I) was registered against the driver of the truck bearing registration no. JH-09AL-8659 and the chargesheet (Exhibit-2) was also submitted against the said driver. It is also not in ( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 4 dispute that the truck was under the insurance cover of the National Insurance Company Limited and the relevant papers were filed. 5. Two separate claim applications were preferred by the claimants who are daughterand sons of the deceased persons. As per the claim applications, deceased Saryu Mahto was having a monthly income of Rs. 15,000/- from agriculture and mason, however during evidence it came out that he was a daily wage mazdoor and as per the case of the claimants.The deceased Manju Devi was running a beauty parlor in village Telo Fulsodih, P.S. Chandrapura. 6. Learned Tribunal recorded a finding and assessed the income of the deceased Saryu Mahto as Rs.13,000/- by accepting that he was a mason working at the time of accident and further Rs. 1,000/- was accepted from agriculture. So far as Manju Devi was concerned, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that she was running a beauty parlour from which she had a monthly income of Rs. 9,000/- taking Rs. 300 per day. 7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company in M.A. No. 250 of 2020 that accident took place in the year 2018 and even if it is accepted that the deceased Saryu Mahto was a mason by profession, the income of Rs. 13,000/- per month is unrealistically high and exaggerated. Further no chit of paper was found to show that deceased had any agricultural land in his name, but the Tribunal has assessed Rs. 1,000/- per month as income from agriculture. It is contended that as per the daily wage mazdoor for semi-skilled labouras per notification in the year 2018 comes to Rs. 7803.73 per month. In contra, it is argued on behalf of the claimants that mason in any case will come within a skilled labour whose monthly income (the minimum wage for skilled labour) is Rs. 9868.26/-. It is further argued with regard to income of deceased and there is no presumption that a person cannot earn more than the minimum wage. 8. In M.A. No. 253 of 2020, it is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the Insurance Company that monthly income of Rs.9000/- has been allowed to the deceased Manju Devi by accepting her ( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 5 occupation as a beautician without any supporting document. It is argued that in rural areas there is scarcely any beauty parlor and only on the oral evidence the learned tribunal has awarded the compensation. The learned counsel on behalf of the claimants submits that there has not been any cross-examination regarding occupation so as to confirm the submissions advanced on behalf of the witnesses regarding the income of deceased. 9. It is submitted by learned counsel on behalf of the claimants that no compensation has been awarded under the head of future prospects and further no amount has been awarded under the head of consortium and also under the non-conventional head, the compensation is not impugned with the settled law. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced on both sides and on perusal of material on record, I find substance in the arguments advanced on behalf of the Insurance Company that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding consortium under the head of love and affection for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each to the claimants, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited VS Pranay Sethi, 2017 16 SCC 680. The learned tribunal further erred in not awarding compensation under the head of future prospects as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (Supra). 11. So far as the monthly income of the deceased Saryu Mahto is concerned, it is consistent case of the claimants that deceased was a mason and the witnesses have also deposed that he was having a monthly income of Rs. 14,000/- and therefore, there is no error in the assessment of income of the deceased Saryu Mahto. 12. However, so far as the income of Manju Devi is concerned, it is difficult to accept the plea and evidence that the deceased was running a beauty parlour in a remote village without any supporting documentary evidence. The testimony of witnesses has to be scrutinized on the touchstone of definition of proof given under section 3 of the Evidence Act which is as under: ( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 6 “Proved- A fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists.” 13. The law is settled in this regard that prudent man test is to be applied while appreciating evidence. Merely because a witness has deposed on oath cannot be accepted as gospel truth without any judicial scrutiny. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate that in the rural area the deceased Manju Devi was running a beauty parlor with an income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence, her occupation of beautician running a beauty parlour cannot be accepted. 14. In the absence of any cogent pleading or proof of income, compensation can be assessed by taking notional income of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Taking Rs. 15,000/- as notional income and the age of the deceased Manju Devi was 42 years at the time of her death, therefore by taking 14 as the multiplier and future prospects 25%. The final compensation amount will work out as under: - Thus,compensation awarded in Motor Accident Claim Case No.122/2018 for the death of Manju Devi is modified as under: - Annual Income = Rs.15,000/- X 12 Rs.1,80,000/- Future Prospects Rs.1,80,000/- X 25% Rs.45,000/- After adding annual income and future prospects Rs.1,80,000 + Rs.45,000 =Rs.2,25,000/- Deduction of 1/3 as personal and living expense Rs. 75,000/- After deducting Rs. 2,25,000-75,000 Rs.1,50,000 Multiplier of 14 taking the age of the deceased to be 42 years Rs. 21,00,000/- Non-Conventional Head Rs.77,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 21,77,000/- The final compensation amount in Motor Accident Claim Case No.123 of2018 for the death of Saryu Mahto is modified as under: - ( 2025:JHHC:32699 ) 7 Annual Income = Rs.14000/- X 12 Rs.1,68 ,000/- Future Prospects of Rs.1,68,000/- X 25% Rs.42,000/- After adding annual income and future prospects Rs.1,68,000 +Rs.42,000 =Rs.2,10,000/- Deduction of 1/3 as personal and living expense Rs.70,000/- After deducting Rs. 2,10,000-70,000 Rs. 1,40,000/- Multiplier of 14 taking the age of the deceased to be 42 years Rs. 19,60,000/- Non-Conventional Head Rs. 77,000/- Total Compensation Rs.20,37,000/- 15. All the Miscellaneous appeals are disposed of accordingly. 16. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. 17. Insurance Company is directed to make payment of Rs.21,77,000 in M.A. No. 167 of 2020 and Rs. 20,37,000/- in M.A. No. 168 of 2020 with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, within a month of the order/judgment which shall be disbursed to the claimants. 18. Statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of these appeals (M.A. No. 253 of 2020 and M.A. No. 250 of 2020) shall be remitted to the lower Court below and is to be disbursed to the claimants after adjusting from final compensation amount. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abha/Pawan/ - Uploaded 03.11.2025