Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 385 of 2014 1. Manorma Sharma, Wife of Late Vijay Sharma 2. Sangita Ranjan, Wife of Late Ambuj Rausan 3. Ram Ramaya, Son of Late Vijay Sharma 4. Sanjukta Sharma, Wife of Binod Singh 5. Sadhna Singh, Wife of Asjit Singh 6. Krishna Kanhaiya, Son of Late Vijay Sharma 7. Sandhya Sharma, D/o of Late Vijay Sharma All Resident of near Talab, Bhaljoria Road, P.O.& P.S.Nirsa, District Dhanbad. ... Plaintiffs/Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Raj Kumar Kalra (Dead), S/O Late Tapan Das Kalra, Resident of Main Road, Barbil, P.O. & P.S. Barbil & Dist. Keonjhar (Orissa) 2. M/S Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Rathore Mansion, Bank More, P.O. & P.S. Bankmore, and Dist. Dhanbad. ... Defendants/Respondents WITH M. A. No. 496 of 2014 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, Branch Office at Rathore Mansion, Bank More, P.O. & P.S. Bank More, District - Dhanbad represented through its, Sr. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ranchi Division-1, Ranchi, Tiwary Enclave, Circular Road, Ranchi, P.O. and P.S. Lalpur, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. ….. Defendant No.2/Appellant Versus (1) Manorma Sharma, wife of Late Vijay Sharma, (2) Sangita Ranjan, wife of Late Ambuj Rausan, (3) Ram Ramaya, son of Late Vijay Sharma, Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 (4) Sanjukta Singh, wife of Binod Singh, (5) Sadhana Singh, wife of Asjit Singh, (6) Krishna Kanaiya, son of Late Vijay Sharma, (7) Sandhya Sharma, daughter of Late Vijay Sharma, All are residents of near Talab, Bhaljoria Road, P.O. Nirsa, P.S. Nirsa, District Dhanbad Jharkhand. …….. Plaintiffs/Claimants/Respondents (8) Raj Kumar Kalra (Dead), son of Late Tapan Das Kalra, resident of Main Road, Barbil, P.O. and P.S. Barbil, District Keonkjhar (Orissa). Defendant No.1/Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- M.A. No. 385 of 2014 For the Appellants: Mr Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate For Resp. 2/Ins. Co.: Mr G. C. Jha, Advocate M.A. No. 496 of 2014 For the Appellant/Ins. Co: Mr G. C. Jhar, Advocate For Resps.1-7/Claimants: Mr Rajiv Kumar Karan, Advocate --------- 14/Dated: 17.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The learned counsel for the parties agree that both the appeals can be disposed of by a common order. In any event, both these appeals were tagged together because they challenge the same judgment and award dated 20th of June 2014 in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 136 of 2005. 3. The case being M.A. No. 496 of 2014 is instituted by the Insurance Company, submitting that in this case a pay and recovery order should have been made, and M.A. No. 385 of 2014 is instituted by the claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 4. Insofar as the appeal of the Insurance Company is concerned, it is necessary to note that the case of the Insurance Company was that the offending and insured vehicle was driven, not by the owner or the driver but by the cleaner who had no driving licence. Therefore, the Insurance Company urged before the Tribunal that it should either be absolved of liability or, at least, a pay-and- recovery order be made. 5. The Tribunal relied upon a case of Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 21, in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- “In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the driver duly authorised to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability? The expression "breach" occurring in Section 96(2)(b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. As such the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. If the insured has taken all precautions Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of Section 96, In the present case far from establishing that it was the appellant who had allowed Rajinder Pal Singh to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, there is not even any allegation that it was the appellant who was guilty of violating the condition that the vehicle shall not be driven by a person not duly licensed. From the facts of the case, it appears that the appellant had done everything within his power inasmuch as he has engaged a licensed driver Gurubachan Singh and had placed the vehicle in his charge. While interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunals and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials on record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment-debtor in respect of the liability in view of sub- Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 section (1) of Section 96 of the Act. It need not be pointed out that the whole concept of getting the vehicle insured by an insurance company is to provide an easy mode of getting compensation by the claimants, otherwise in normal course they had to pursue their claim against the owner from one forum to the other and ultimately to execute the order of the Accident Claims Tribunal for realisation of such amount by sale of properties of the owner of the vehicle. The procedure and result of the execution of the decree is well known." 6. In this case, there was no evidence that the insured owner had willfully allowed a person to drive the vehicle who had no licence. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the insured vehicle. 7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied on Kusum Lata and Others v. Satbir and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 646, and S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, (2013) 7 SCC 62. These decisions refer to the competence of a Tribunal to make a pay and recovery order. That position was never in dispute. The question is whether, in the facts of the present case, it could be said that the owner of the insured vehicle had committed a fundamental breach of the terms of the insurance policy by allowing a non-licensed driver to drive the insured Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 vehicle. There is no evidence to this effect that the owner had allowed the cleaner with no licence to drive the insured vehicle. 8. Accordingly, no case is made out even for making a pay and recovery order in this case. The appeal of the Insurance Company, i.e. M.A. No. 496 of 2014, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9. Insofar as case number M.A. No. 385 of 2014 is concerned, the Tribunal has taken the deceased's monthly income at Rs. 45,093/- and, after deducting income tax, held that the actual annual salary received by the deceased would be Rs. 3,91,116/-. Though the learned counsel for the appellants-claimants tried to submit that the deceased's monthly salary was higher than the amount determined by the Tribunal, with respect, he was unable to elaborate upon or establish this contention. 10. However, the learned counsel for the claimants was justified in contending that no addition has been made towards future prospects and that such addition of 15% was necessary given the law laid down in the case of Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 58,667/- will have to be added to Rs. 3,91,116/-. 11. An amount of 25% will have to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased. The multiplier in this case is 11 considering that the age of the deceased was 52 years. The compensation towards dependency would therefore come to Rs. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 37,10,707/-. To the above amount, the claimants would be entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/-, i.e. Rs. 40,000/- each towards loss of consortium, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate, and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. This is consistent with the law laid down in Sarla Verma (supra) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 12. Thus, the total compensation will have to be determined at Rs. 39,00,707/- in place of Rs. 32,41,707/- determined by the Tribunal. 13. The claimants’ appeal number M.A. No. 385 of 2014, is, therefore, liable to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs. 39,00,707/-. The interest awarded by the Tribunal is maintained. 14. The Insurance Company has till date paid an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the claimants. The balance amount will now have to be paid by the Insurance Company by depositing the same in this Court within six weeks from today, after giving necessary intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants. The statutory amount deposited by the Insurance Company can also be adjusted. 15. Once the amount is deposited, the Registry is directed to permit the appellants/claimants to withdraw it by transferring it into their bank accounts. Under no circumstances should the transfers be otherwise than through regular banking channels. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:21125 16. The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has agreed to provide their identity and bank details so that the transfer of the compensation can be effected at the earliest. 17. Accordingly, M.A. No. 496 of 2014 is dismissed and M.A. No. 385 of 2014 is partly allowed, without any order for costs. 18. IAs, if any pending in these appeals, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 17, 2026 A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 22.07.2026