2026:JHHC:8678 -1 of 8- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 410 of 2017 The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hotel Novelty, Powerganj Chowk, Lohardaga, P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga through its legal cell, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District- Ranchi. ... ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Deventi Orain, Aged about 27 years, Wife of Late Jitram Oraon. 2. Ankit Oraon, Aged about 7 years, Son of Late Jitram Oraon. 3. Aryan Oraon, Aged about 4 years, Son of Late Jitram Oraon. 4. Etava Oraon, Aged about 61 years, Son of Late Jora Oraon. 5. Mango Orain, Aged about 55 years, Wife of Etava Oraon. 2 & 3 being minor are represented through their mother and natural guardian, Deventi Orain, Respondent No.1. All resident of Village- Badla Chatakpur, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha, District- Lohardaga. 6. Mr. Madan Mahto, Son of Late Loharmai Mahto, Resident of Village- Badla, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha, District- Simdega. ... Respondents. With Cross Objection No. 11 of 2022 1. Deventi Orain, aged about 32 years, wife of Late Jitram Oraon. 2. Ankit Oraon, aged about 12 years, son of Late Jitram Oraon. 3. Aryan Oraon, aged about 9 years, son of Late Jitram Oraon. 4. Etava Oraon, aged about 66 years, son of Late Jora Oraon. 5. Mango Orain, aged about 60 years, wife of Etava Oraon. 2 & 3 being minor are represented through their mother and natural guardian, Deventi Orain, Respondent No.1. All resident of Village- Badla Chatakpur, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha, District- Lohardaga. .. Cross Objectors Versus 1. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Hotel Novelty, Powerganj, P.O., P.S. & District- Lohardaga, through its Legal Cell, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. & P.S. Lalpur, District-Ranchi. 2. Mr. Madan Mahto, son of Late Loharmai Mahto, Resident of Village- Badla, P.O. Badla, P.S. Senha, District- Simdega. … … Respondents. --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1 to 5: Mrs. Rakhi Rani Advocate. For Resp. No. 6: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate. [in Misc. Appeal No. 410 of 2017] 2026:JHHC:8678 -2 of 8- For the C.O.: Mrs. Rakhi Rani, Advocate For Resp. No.1: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate For Resp. No.2: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate [in Cross Objection No. 11 of 2022] --------- 15/Dated: 26.03.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal and Cross Objection are directed against the judgment and Award dated 08.02.2017 in Compensation Claim Case No. 49 of 2012 made by Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Lohardaga (Tribunal). 3. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, and the Cross Objection has been filed by the claimants. 4. Mr Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the deceased Jitram Oraon was only a gratuitous passenger on the insured tractor. He submitted that the owner of the tractor i.e. the 6th respondent, had not paid any premium to cover a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, the appellant Insurance Company should not have been made liable for payment of any compensation to the claimants. 5. Mr Manish Kumar further submitted that the deceased died on account of his own negligence. This, he submitted, was yet another reason why the claim petition should have been dismissed. 6. Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel for the tractor owner, submitted that the deceased was a coolie/loader employed by the owner for which he was paid Rs. 125/- per day. He therefore submitted that the deceased could not be regarded as a gratuitous passenger. He submitted that the Tribunal has considered this aspect and correctly 2026:JHHC:8678 -3 of 8- held the appellant Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation amount. 7. Mrs Rakhi Rani, the learned counsel for the claimants, while contesting the contentions on behalf of the Insurer, submitted that the claimants’ cross-objection should be allowed, as compensation of Rs. 40,000/- each was required to be paid to the claimants, given the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. She submitted that in terms of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate should have been Rs. 30,000/-. 8. Mrs Rakhi Rani further relied upon Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 to submit that since the deceased was 30 years old, the multiplier applicable should have been 17 and not 16. She submitted that the annual income should have been increased by 40% to reflect future prospects, not merely 30%. She submitted that the interest awarded was meagre and should have been awarded from the date of the claim petition. 9. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 10. Based on the pleadings and the contentions, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal and Cross Objection: - (a) Whether, the deceased, was merely a gratuitous passenger in the insured tractor, thereby, relieving the appellant Insurance Company of any liability to pay the compensation amount? 2026:JHHC:8678 -4 of 8- (b) Whether the deceased was himself negligent, and therefore responsible for the accidental death? (c) Is the compensation determined by the Tribunal just and proper? (d) Should the interest be enhanced and made payable from the date of the claim petition? 11. So far as the first point for determination is concerned, the record shows that the appellant Insurance Company, in its written statement, had specifically raised the issue of the deceased allegedly being a gratuitous passenger in the insured tractor. Even though no formal issue appears to have been framed by the Tribunal, the issue of the status of the deceased has been considered by the Tribunal, given the evidence laid on behalf of the claimants to the effect that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger, but a coolie/labourer engaged by the owner who worked on the tractor. 12. CW 1 and CW 2, who were the co-acquaintances of the deceased, deposed that the deceased worked as a coolie/labourer for the owner and on the fateful day, he had boarded the tractor to load bricks. They have also deposed to the deceased's earnings being Rs. 6,000/- per month. CW 3, the widow of the deceased, also testified to her husband being a labourer. CW 4, the father of the deceased, also deposed that the deceased worked as a coolie on the tractor, which was insured, and earned Rs 6,000/- per month from his labour. 13. The appellant Insurance Company has led no evidence to prove that the deceased was indeed a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, considering the overwhelming evidence on record, the appellant 2026:JHHC:8678 -5 of 8- Insurance Company’s case about the deceased being a gratuitous passenger cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the first point for determination is decided against the appellant Insurance Company. 14. Insofar as the second point for determination is concerned, the evidence does not support the contention that the deceased was negligent and, therefore, responsible for the accident in which he died. This ground now raised in the appeal has no merit. 15. Insofar as the third point for determination is concerned, the impugned Award does indicate that the Tribunal has awarded the claimants a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards consortium. In terms of Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), the compensation towards the consortium should have been Rs. 40,000/- for each claimant. Therefore, compensation towards the consortium should have been Rs. 2,00,000/- and not merely Rs. 50,000/-. 16. Similarly, the Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 10,000/- towards funeral expenses and failed to make any award towards loss of estate. In terms of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses should have been awarded. 17. The Tribunal has also added 30% towards future prospects. However, since the evidence on records suggests that the deceased was 33 years old, 40% should have been added towards future prospects. 2026:JHHC:8678 -6 of 8- 18. As regards, the multiplier, though, the post-mortem report refers to the age of the deceased as 30 years, the evidence on record establishes that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of his demise. The learned counsel for the claimants’ states that the witnesses i.e. the widow and the father who deposed to the deceased being 33 years old, are illiterate and therefore, it would be safer to go by the age mentioned in the post-mortem report. 19. The above contention cannot be accepted. Even the age mentioned in the post-mortem report is not based on any ossification test or any other scientific/forensic test. Even that age is possibly the result of information provided to the doctors who prepared the post- mortem report. Since the widow and the father have deposed that the deceased was 33 years old at the time of the accident, the Tribunal was justified accepting that evidence and determining the compensation. The correct multiplier, therefore, would be 16 and not 17. 20. Based on the above, the compensation will have to be determined as follows: - (A) The income of the deceased at the time of the accident was Rs. 6,000/- per month. (B) Addition of 40% due to future prospect, i.e., Rs. 6,000 + 2,400 = Rs. 8,400/- per month. (C) Loss of dependency per annum works out to Rs. 8,400 x 12 = Rs. 1,00,800/-. (D) 1/4th of the amount to be deducted, as there were 5 claimants, i.e., Rs. 1,00,800 - 25,200 = Rs. 75,600/-. 2026:JHHC:8678 -7 of 8- (E) The multiplier to be applied in this case is 16, i.e., Rs. 75,600 x 16 = Rs. 12,09,600/-. (F) The compensation towards the consortium, i.e., Rs. 12,09,600 + 2,00,000 = Rs. 14,09,600/-. (G) Compensation towards funeral expenses and loss of estate Rs. 30,000/-, i.e., Rs. 14,39,600/-. 21. Therefore, for the above reasons, the just compensation amount would have to be enhanced from Rs. 11,83,200/- to Rs. 14,39,600/-. 22. Insofar as the fourth point for determination is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the Award till realisation. Though the interest rate need not be increased, this interest should have been awarded from the date of the claim petition and not just from the date of the Award. 23. Accordingly, this Appeal and Cross Objection are disposed of by determining the compensation at Rs. 14,39,600/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of this amount. The amount paid by the Insurance Company towards no-fault liability, Rs. 6,00,000/- in the interim and the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- at the time of institution of the appeal shall be adjusted, and the balance amount shall be deposited in this Court with due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants within two months from today. Upon deposit, the Registry will transfer this amount to the claimants’ bank accounts. The learned counsel for the claimants states that she will furnish the claimants' identity and bank details to the Registry at the earliest to facilitate the transfer. 2026:JHHC:8678 -8 of 8- 24. The Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of without any order for costs. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) March 26, 2026 N.A.F.R. VK/Amar Uploaded on 30.03.2026