Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20574 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 26 of 2009 Smt. Sunita Mishra, W/o Sri Dinesh Mishra, Resident of Village: Ramdeopur, P.O.& P.S. Amarpur, District: Banka (Bihar), At present residing at Rajput Mohallah, P.S. Giridih Town, P.O. & District: Giridih (Jharkhand) ... Claimant/Appellant Versus 1. Suresh Kumar Gupta S/o Sri S.N. Prasad, Resident of Bouripara, Ambikapur, P.O. Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, District: Sarguja (Chhatisgarh), At presently residing at Kaimohalla, P.O. Daltonganj, P.S. Medininagar, Daltonganj-822101, Distirct : Daltonganj (Palamou) Jharkhand 2. Md. Nizamuddin S/o Late Khaderan Miyan, Resident of village : Padma, P.S. Manatu, P.O. Manatu, Dist: Palamau (Jharkhand) 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Rajdhani Building, Dharamshala Road, P.O. Daltonganj, P.S. Medininagar, Dist: Daltonganj. 4. Bishnu Prasad Jha, S/o Late Narayan Jha, Resident of Brahmpur, Bousi, P.O./P.S.- Banka, District: Banka (Bihar) 5. Abhay Kant Jha, S/o Kailash Pati Jha, Resident of Argaghat Road, P.S. Giridih (Town), Post and District: Giridih 6. Union Bank of India, Through Branch Manager,f P.O., P.S., & District: Bhagalpur (Bihar) ... Opposite Parties/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate For Resp. No.3/Ins. Co.: Mr Alok Lal, Advocate For Resp. No.6: Mr jAkshay Kumar, Advocate --------- 32/Dated: 10.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20574 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 30.09.2008 made in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Giridih, in Claim Case No. 12 of 2004. 3. This appeal is filed by the claimant, i.e., the mother of the deceased Vivek Ranjan Mishra, who died in a vehicular accident on 18.01.2004. This appeal seeks enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 4. There is some controversy about whether the age of Vivek Ranjan Mishra, at the time of his demise in the accident, was 19 years as contended by his mother or whether it was 17 years as is now held by the Tribunal 5. This dispute is not of great significance, but Mr Alok Lal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, contended that if the deceased was 17 years old, he could not have been employed as a clerk in a Cinema Theatre, i.e., Swarn Chitra Mandir, at Giridih. 6. The Tribunal has solely relied upon the inquest report at Ext-7 and postmortem report at Ext-8 which had mentioned the age of the deceased Vivek as 17 years at the time of his death. This must have obviously been based upon the information supplied by somebody to the doctors who prepared these reports. The appellant-mother has deposed in this matter that her son was 19 years old at the time of the accident. There was no challenge to this statement in the cross-examination. Yet another witness has deposed that Vivek was 19 years old at the time of the accident. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20574 This evidence has been completely ignored by the Tribunal. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that Vivek was only 17 years old at the time of the accident warrants interference and substitution with the age of 19 years. 7. The appellant had deposed that her son Vivek was employed as a clerk in a movie theatre named Swarn Chitra Mandir and earning Rs. 3,000/- per month. A certificate to this effect was also produced on record. However, the Manager of Swarn Chitra Mandir who had issued this certificate was not examined. Instead, a co-employee was examined in this matter, and he deposed that Vivek was employed at the Swarn Chitra Mandir and earned Rs. 3000/- per month. Again, there was no serious challenge in the cross-examination. 8. The Tribunal has unnecessarily referred to the heirship certificate and, by some tenuous reasoning, concluded that, because the certificate states that Vivek lived in his maternal uncle's house only for the purpose of his education, Vivek must be earning only Rs. 15,000/- per annum, i.e. Rs. 1,250 per month. This reasoning cannot be accepted. The purpose of a heirship certificate is entirely different. In such a certificate, there is never any necessity to state employment or income details. 9. Considering the evidence of Vivek’s mother and the co-employee, there was no reason to doubt the fact that Vivek was earning Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of his demise in the vehicular Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20574 accident. This amount is not exorbitant and in the range of reasonability. 10. The Tribunal completely forgot to make any addition to future prospects. In terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addition of 40% was due towards future prospects. Vivek’s annual income would thus come to Rs. 36,000 + Rs. 14,400 = Rs. 50,400/-. Vivek was unmarried at the time of his demise in the accident. Therefore, at least 50% will have to be deducted towards his personal expenses. Therefore, his annual income for determining the dependency compensation will have to be taken at Rs. 25,200/- per annum. Since his age was 18 years, the multiplier in this case would be 18 and not 16 as held by the Tribunal. Compensation towards dependency would thus come to Rs. 25,200 x 18 = Rs. 4,53,600/-. 11. Further, the appellant would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 40,000/- towards consortium. 12. Thus, the total compensation payable would be Rs. 5,23,600/-. 13. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 2,17,300/- to Rs. 5,23,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till actual payment. This is maintained. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:20574 14. The respondent-Insurance Company has paid the originally awarded amount, according to Mr Arvind Kumar Lall. Accordingly, the respondent-Insurance Company is now directed to pay the enhanced amount together with interest within six weeks from today by depositing the same in this Court by giving intimation to the learned counsel for the appellant. Once the amount is deposited, the Registry is directed to allow the appellant to withdraw it upon furnishing identity and bank details. The amount should be paid to the appellant only through regular banking channels and not through any other mode. 15. The Tribunal’s direction for pay and recover in the impugned award is not interfered with, as there was no challenge to it. 16. Pending interim applications, if any, in this appeal, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 10, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 13.07.2026