Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17131 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 206 of 2026 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite Ram Mandir, P.O., P.S. Bistupur, Town Jamshedpur, Dist. East Singhbhum through its Deputy Manager - Poonam Tete, w/o Nishi Pawan Kullu, aged about 45 years, Ranchi (Main), P.O. Kotwali, P.S. Ranchi GPO, Dist. Ranchi ... Opposite Party No. 3/Appellant Versus 1. Laxmi Mhakud, w/o Late Late Lal Mahakud, 2. Minor Krishna Mahakud, s/o Late Lal Mahakud, (No. 2 is minor represented through her mother and natural guardian, Laxmi Mahakud. Both r/o Village Bara Bandhua, Tetla, P.O. Gitilata, P.S. Potka, Dist. East Singhbhum. … Applicants/Respondents 3. Sri Barish Hembram, s/o Toro Hembra, r/o Village Gitilata, Tola Bhursadih, P.O. Gitilata, P.S. Potka, Dist. East Singhbhum. ... Opposite Party/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Ashutosh Anand, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr Jitesh Kumar, Advocate --------- 03/Dated: 12.06.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of and on the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. 3. The appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 23rd of May 2025 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2021, awarding the claimants total compensation of Rs. 17,46,880/- for the demise of Late Lal Mahakud, aged about 30 years, in a vehicular accident. 4. Mr Ashutosh Anand, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that there was no evidence to show that the deceased Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17131 was earning Rs. 8,220/- per month. Without prejudice, he submitted that an addition of up to 40% could have been made towards a future prospect, since the deceased had no permanent employment and was only a labourer. 5. Mr Jitesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that the deceased's wife had deposed that the deceased earned Rs. 9,000/- per month as a labourer. Even the minimum wage notification refers to an income of Rs. 274/- per day. Therefore, there was no error in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,220/-. Besides, he submitted that compensation towards the consortium has been awarded only to one of the claimants when, in fact, there were two claimants. 6. The rival contentions now fall for my determination. 7. Insofar as the deceased's income is concerned, the claimant- widow has stepped into the witness box and deposed that her husband earned Rs. 9,000/- per month as a factory worker. Though she admitted that she does not have any documentary evidence, still, there is no reason to interfere with the determination made by the Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs. 8,220/- per month. 8. In all cases, documentary evidence is not possible, and some amount of guesswork is permissible as long as the same is not beyond the range of reasonability. Considering that the minimum wages for skilled labourers were Rs. 274/- per day, the determination of Rs. 8,220/- as monthly income cannot be faulted Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17131 in the facts and circumstances of the present case, even without entering into the contention that the multiplier to be adopted while determining the income based on the minimum wage notification should be 26 days and not 30 days. That issue is left open for decision in an appropriate case. However, since the evidence on record is sufficient to sustain the determination of Rs. 8,220/- per month, the determination is not interfered with. 9. As regards the addition towards future prospect is concerned, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (paragraph 59.4), contention of Mr Ashutosh Anand that addition should have been 40% and not 50% as held by the Tribunal deserves to be accepted. Here, there is no credible evidence of permanent employment; therefore, the addition towards future prospects should have been only 40%, not 50%. 10. Insofar as the consortium is concerned, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that there were two claimants, each entitled to compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards the consortium. To that extent also, the award deserves modification. 11. On this basis, the compensation amount will have to be reworked to Rs. 16,75,088/- instead of Rs. 17,46,880/-. The award is modified to this extent, and the compensation amount of Rs. 17,46,880/- is now substituted by Rs. 16,75,088/-. 12. The issue of interest regarding the future prospect is left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17131 13. The appeal is partly allowed to the above extent, without any order for costs. 14. Mr Ashutosh Anand states that the entire amount of compensation awarded has been deposited with this Court. The claimants are permitted to withdraw compensation to the extent of Rs. 16,75,088/- along with interest as directed in the impugned award. The balance amount, including the amount of statutory deposit together with interest, if any, that shall have accrued on this amount, will have to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company. If any interest has accrued on the amounts deposited or the statutory deposit amount, the same will also have to be paid to the respective parties in the above proportions. 15. The claimants must furnish their identity and bank details so that the Registry can transfer the compensation amount due to them directly into their bank accounts. Under no circumstances should any payment be made otherwise than through the regular banking channels. 16. The orders made by the Tribunal for the investment of the amount in the name of the minor are upheld and must be followed. 17. The claimants must file a compliance report regarding the investment, including details of the FD. The FD should be taken out only with the nationalised bank and not with any other bank. 18. Mr Ashutosh Anand submitted that in this case, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a driving licence. However, in this case, the Tribunal has already made a pay & recovery order and Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:17131 therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the award on this ground. 19. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms, without any order for costs. 20. I.A. No. 7652 of 2026 for withdrawal does not survive, given the above order disposing of the appeal finally, and the same is also disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) June 12, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Cp.2 Uploaded on 15.06.2026