(2026: JHHC: 21221) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 213 of 2015 Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., having its Office at 2nd Floor, Jha Niwas, Opp. Hotel Yuvraj Palace, Diversion Road, Doranda, Ranchi through its Manager. Pradeep Kr. Ghatak S/o P. B. Ghatak. Shriram General Insurance Co Ltd., 1003 E, 8, RIICO Industrial Area Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan, P.O. Jaipur, P.S. Jaipur Kotwali, Dist. Jaipur …. ….Opposite Party No. 2/ Appellant Versus 1. Rupsina Hansda (minor) D/o Late Manoj Kr. Hansda, 2. Albiunis Hansda (minor) s/o Late Manoj Kumar Hansda, 3. Antinuis Hansda (minor) s/o Late Manoj Kumar Hansda, Nos. 2 to 4 are minors and are being represented through their living guardian respondent no. 1 All r/o Village Kashila (Kalidaspur Panchayat), P.S. Pakur (M), presently r/o Village Bagdabra, P.O & P.S. Usmanpur, Dist. Murshidabad (West Bengal) …. Claimants / Respondent nos. 1 to 4 4. Md. Majhar Ansari s/o Md. Sayed, r/o Village Bipatpur, P.O. Torai, P.S. Hiranpur, Dist. Pakur … Opposite Party no. 1/ Respondent No. 5 --- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr Ashutosh Anand, Advocate Mr Vincent Marki, Advocate For the Respondents 1-3: Md Faruque Ansari, Advocate Md Asadul Haque, Advocate For the Respondent No. 4: Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate --- 05 / Dated: 18.07.2026 1. Heard Mr Ashutosh Anand who appears with Mr Vincent Marki for the appellant Insurance Company. 2. Connected appeal, i.e., M.A. No. 212 of 2015 has been disposed of by judgment and order pronounced today, i.e. 18.07.2026. Since the same contentions have been raised, by adopting the reasoning in the said judgment and order, this appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. However, the Tribunal has erred in determining and calculating the compensation amount in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) (2026: JHHC: 21221) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Ltd versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680. Upon proper calculation, the compensation amount would come to Rs. 38, 38,000/- instead of Rs. 37, 72,000/-. 4. Therefore, though the appeal is being dismissed, but the just compensation amount is determined at Rs. 38,38,000/- and the appellant Insurance Company is directed to pay the same to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The deletion of the name of the 1st Respondent (Budhan Hansda) in the cause title is allowed and should be carried out forthwith. 5. Directions issued in the judgment and order disposing of M.A. No. 212 of 2015 with regard to deposit of the compensation amount and its withdrawal will apply in this matter as well. 6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. Pending I.A., if any, will not survive and is disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 18, 2026 NAFR Ranjeet/R.Kr./Cp.2 Uploaded on 22.07.2026