UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THROUGH MANAGER v. PRIYA KUMARI
MA/178/2026 · 2026-06-12
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16407 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 16407 (JHR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M. A. No. 178 of 2026 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Policy ISS Office, City Centre, Sector- IV B.S. City, District- Bokaro Also at: Buxidih Road, P.O- Giridih(T) Through Manager, Having its Office at Vyapar Bhawan. Lalji Hirji Road, P.S. Kotwali, P.O. & District Ranchi. ... O.P. No.3/Appellant
Versus
1. Priya Kumari, wife of Late Manish Kumar,
2. Master Mayank Kumar, Son Of Late Manish Kumar,
3. Pravavati Devi@ Prabhavati Devi, Wife of Late Kishor Kumar Sahu, All are R/o- Pandeydih, P.O- Sirsiya, Giridih(M), Jharkhand (Respondent No. 2 is Minor and is being represented through Mother being his natural guardian as his Next Friend) … … Applicant No.1 to 3/
4. Dharmendra Kumar, Son of Bhola Singh, H. No. 1040, P.O- Jaina More, Bandhdih, P.S- Jaina More, District – Bokaro – 829301 (Owner) -
… … Opp. Party No.1
5. Sanjay Rajak, Son of Paran Baitha, R/o: village- Purni Kharkhari, Jawaharnagar, P.S- Birni, Dist. Giridih. (Driver) … Opp. Party No.2 ... Respondents
--------- CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
--------- For the Appellant: Mr Alok Lal, Advocate
Mr Santosh Kumar, Advocate
--------- 04/Dated: 12.06.2026
1. By a separate order, the delay in instituting this appeal has been condoned. 2. Considering the only ground raised by Mr Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. Mr Alok Lal submitted that only offers of employment and documents regarding the employment almost one year prior to the accident were produced on record. Based on the same, the Tribunal was not justified in determining the deceased's income at Rs. 25,000/- per month. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17129
4. Mr Alok Lal submitted that the accident took place on 13th of February 2023. The documents produced on record refer to employment in 2022 and offer of employment letters. However, there is no evidence regarding the employment as of the date of the accident or the salary earned by the deceased on that date. 5. Having considered the above sole ground raised by Mr Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellant, I am not satisfied that the same warrants any acceptance and consequent modification in the compensation amount determined by the Tribunal. 6. In this case, the accident took place on 13.02.2023. 7.
There are pleadings that before the accident, the deceased was working as a Medical Representative. Exhibits 4 to 8 are documents that establish the deceased's work experience and previous job profiles. There is documentary evidence regarding the deceased's graduation certificate, training certificate, appointment letters, and salary proposals. 8. Exhibit 6 is also an appointment letter dated 29.06.2026 issued by Sujan Pharma, a Kolkata-based Pharma Company, as a Territory Business Manager. There is Exhibit 7 – appointment letter dated 20.02.2021 issued by CEREBRUS, a Pharma Company based in Hyderabad, for the position of Therapy Manager. 9. The above documentary evidence was produced by CW.2 – the mother of the deceased. The Tribunal has noted that this witness (mother) withstood the cross-examination. Though she was illiterate, she deposed that, as a Medical Representative, her son would market medicines to Doctors and Medical Stores. All this
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17129
evidence was more than sufficient to establish that the deceased was indeed a Medical Representative and was familiar with this activity. 10. The Tribunal has conservatively determined the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 25,000/-. Judicial notice can be taken of the circumstance that even peons and clerks in government service draw a salary of around Rs. 20-25 thousand per month. Therefore, to hold that a Graduate trained in the field of working as a Medical Representative and who was employed by two or three pharma companies in various responsible positions would not even earn Rs. 25,000/- per month, is a contention that deserves no acceptance. 11. Ultimately, in these matters, some amount of guesswork is always permissible if the same is within the range of reasonability. It is not as if documentary evidence is a must in all cases. Here, ample documentary evidence has been produced. This is also backed by oral evidence.
Therefore, there is no case made out to interfere with the Tribunal’s finding that the deceased was drawing an income of Rs. 25,000/- per month as on the date of the accident. 12. The Tribunal’s award, however, warrants some interference, because compensation towards the consortium has been awarded only to the wife and the minor son but not the mother, who was also one of the claimants. Besides, the compensation towards the consortium is only Rs. 40,000/- when, in fact, it should have been Rs. 44,400/- for each claimant. Accordingly, an
Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17129
additional compensation of Rs. 48,800/- must be added to the compensation already determined. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. However, the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs. 48,800/- so as to give it the character of ‘just compensation’. 14. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal has already been deposited with this Court. The additional compensation amount should now be deposited in this Court within four weeks from today, after adjusting the statutory deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/- together with interest, if any, that has accrued on this amount. The additional amount will also carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. The compensation amount originally deposited and to be deposited within four weeks must be transferred by the Registry to the claimants' bank accounts. Since they are not appearing, the Registry should seek assistance from the Secretary, DLSA, Giridih, and the Member Secretary of the JHALSA. This exercise of transferring the compensation amount must be completed within four weeks from today in respect of the originally deposited compensation amount and four weeks after the additional amount is deposited. 16. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) June 12, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Cp.2 Uploaded on 15.06.2026