2026:JHHC:16975 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 334 of 2025 Magma HDI General Insurance Co. Ltd, Branch Office at H.no.17 & 18, Ram Mandir Garage Area, 3rd Floor, Padmalaya Building, Bistupur, P.O. & P.S. Bitupur, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand 831001, through its Manager, Legal Claims having its office at Magma General Insurance Limited, Unit 508, 5th Floor, Patna One Mall, Dakbungla Churaha P.S. Kotwali, P.O. and District Patna. ... ... Appellant Versus 1. Shila Devi Wife of Dinesh Prasad 2. Dinesh Prasad Son of Kisharo Prasad Both resident of H.No.2, Road No.1, Prem Nagar, Near Geeta Bhawan, P.O. Telco, Town Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. 3.. Bijay Narayan Nayak, Son of Guru Pada Nayak, Resident of 112/4, Bara Gamharia, Banka Para, Near Shiv Mandir, District Saraikela Kharsawan, Jharkhand. (Owner of Truck No. JH05CA 6775) ... Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate For Resp. Nos. 1 & 2 (Claimants) : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate. Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 12.06.2026 1. Heard Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mrs Swati Shalini, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants). 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final disposal. The records have also been called for and are available. 3. Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 19,396/- per month at the time of the accident. He submitted that no documentary evidence was produced in support of such an assertion. He submitted that this determination is based solely on a salary certificate and on evidence from Uday Kant Yadav, the contractor who employed the deceased, that an amount of Rs. 5,000/- per week was 2026:JHHC:16975 -2- being paid in cash. He submitted that in the absence of any cogent evidence, the income of the deceased could never have been taken at Rs. 19,396/- per month. 4. Mrs Swati Shalini, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that the contractor who issued the salary certificate dated 5.12.2023 deposed before the Court. There was no cross-examination on behalf of the appellant or any other parties. Besides, she pointed out that the deceased was a highly skilled worker and the minimum wages notification for such a worker in Category-A areas was Rs. 19,396/- per month, effective from 11.10.2023. Accordingly, she submitted that there was no error in the Tribunal’s finding. 5. Since no other contention was raised, I proceed to decide the only contention raised as follows. 6. Firstly, there is evidence on record that the deceased was employed with Uday Kant Yadav and that he was a highly skilled worker. There is evidence that the deceased was issued a National Trade Certificate on 23.01.2023 by the Director General of Training, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship, Government of India, for the trade of Fitter (NSQF). In Paragraph 38, the Tribunal has considered in detail the significance of such a certificate and how fitters are a much-sought-after as highly skilled workers. 7. In Paragraph 38, the Tribunal has also relied upon the Government notification dated 11.03.2024, by which the minimum wages for a highly skilled worker in category-A areas, including the municipal areas of Jamshedpur, are stated to be Rs. 19,396/- per month, effective from 11.10.2023. 8. As if the above evidence were not sufficient, in this case, the employer of the deceased Mr Uday Kant Yadav, who had issued the 2026:JHHC:16975 -3- salary certificate dated 05.12.2023, has deposed before the Tribunal. He stated that he used to pay Rs. 5,000/- per week to the deceased. From the records, it appears that there was no cross-examination on this aspect by the appellant or any of the other respondents in the claim petition. 9. Thus, based on the oral and documentary evidence on record, there was no error in determining the deceased's salary at Rs. 19,396/- per month. The Tribunal's observation that there was no documentary evidence regarding the receipt of salary is incorrect. In any event, it is well settled that documentary evidence is not a must in all such matters, and other evidence for determining the deceased's salary can always be considered, subject to certain safeguards. Such safeguards have been more than aptly applied in the present case. 10. Thus, the only contention raised on behalf of the appellant- Insurance Company deserves no acceptance. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. However, the impugned Award in this case shows that though there were two claimants, i.e. the parents of the deceased, only Rs. 48,400/- has been awarded towards consortium. In terms of the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Company Limited v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Ors., (2018) 18 SCC 130, such a consortium should have been awarded to each of the claimants. Accordingly, the compensation amount is liable to be increased by Rs. 48,400/-. It is the duty of the Court to determine and award just compensation even though the same may not have been prayed for. 12. Accordingly, the impugned Award is modified by increasing the compensation amount by Rs. 48,400/-. This increased amount will 2026:JHHC:16975 -4- also carry interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the amount is actually paid to the claimants. 13. This additional amount should be deposited in this Court within four weeks from today, after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants. The claimants are allowed to withdraw the already deposited amount and the additional amount now directed by furnishing their identity and bank details. The amount should be transferred through regular banking channels at the earliest, and no other mode should be used. 14. Once the additional amount is deposited, the Registry will refund the statutory deposit made by the appellant-Insurance Company, together with interest, if any, that shall have accrued on this amount to the appellant-Insurance Company. 15. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 16. Interlocutory applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) 12.06.2026 N.A.F.R. APK/VK Uploaded on 16.06.2026