( 2026:JHHC:21247 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 212 of 2015 With I.A. No. 6084 of 2025 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 Manger- 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, District- Jaipur. …. .... Appellant Versus 1. Rupsina Hansda (minor) daughter of Late Manoj Kumar Hansda. 2. Albiunis Hansda (minor) son of Late Manoj Kumar Hansda. 3. Antinuis Hansda (minor) son of Late Manoj Kumar Hansda. All are minors and are being represented through their living guardian respondent no.1 (now dead). All resident of Village Kashila (Kalidaspur Panchayat) P.S.- Pakur (M), presently r/o Village Bagdebra, P.O.& P.S.- Usmanpur, District- Murshidabad (West Bengal). 4. Md. Majhar Ansari, son of Md. Sayed, r/o Village-Bipatpur, P.O.- Torai, P.S.- Hiranpur, District- Pakur. …. …. Respondents ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Appellant : Mr Ashutosh Anand, Advocate Mr Vincent Marki, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 3 : Md Farooq Ansari, Advocate Md Asadul Haque, Advocate For the Resp. No. 4 : Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate ----- 29 /Dated: 18.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. Md Farooq Ansari, learned counsel for the claimants, has submitted that Budhan Hansda, the 1st respondent, has expired on 06.10.2023. He submitted that the legal representative of Budhan Hansda needs to be brought on record and direction should be issued to the appellant-Insurance Company to do the same. 3. Mr Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that Budhan Hansda was the father/father-in-law of the deceased Manoj Kumar Hansda and Anjanli Soren. Accordingly, on his demise, at the highest, the minor ( 2026:JHHC:21247 ) 2 children of Manoj Kumar Hansda and Anjali Soren would be regarded as dependents. He pointed out that minor children are already on record and by now, they have attained majority. This position has not been disputed by Mr Farooq Ansari, who appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 (claimants). 4. Accordingly, I am satisfied that there is no necessity of bringing any legal representative of Budhan Hansda on record in this appeal. However, the name of the 1st respondent, Budhan Hansda, is ordered to be deleted from the cause title in this appeal. 5. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 11th November, 2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Pakur in MACT Case No. 104 of 2013, instituted by Budhan Hansda, the father-in-law of the deceased Anjali Soren and her three children, who were at that stage minors, seeking compensation for the death of their daughter-in-law/mother respectively in a vehicular accident on 29.06.2013. 6. Mr Ashutosh Anand submitted that this was a case of contributory negligence because Anjali’s husband Manoj, who was driving a motorcycle bearing Registration No. JH-04E-4228, was equally negligent and responsible for the accident with the autorickshaw bearing Registration No. JH-16A-9200. He submitted that Manoj Kumar Hansda did not have a proper license to drive the motorcycle and this is another ground to hold that this was a case of contributory negligence. Finally, Mr. Ashutosh Anand submitted that the computation of compensation is excessive and contrary to the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. In Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr [(2009) 6 SCC 121] and National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors., [(2017) 16 SCC 680]. ( 2026:JHHC:21247 ) 3 7. Md Farooq Ansari, learned counsel for the claimants, defended the impugned Award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that the compensation amount, far from being excessive, is in fact lesser than the just compensation that should have been awarded after following the decision cited by Mr Ashutosh Anand. He urged that this Court be pleased to award just compensation to the claimants. 8. Mr Arvind Kumar Lall submitted that the finding in the impugned Award about the autorickshaw not having a proper license is incorrect and submitted that no pay and recovery order should have been made in this case. He pointed out that the autorickshaw driver had already filed M.A. Nos. 78 and 2015 and 79 of 2015 to challenge the impugned Award on these grounds. 9. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 10. Insofar as the issue of contributory negligence is concerned, the pleadings are quite sketchy. Based on such pleadings, the Tribunal did not even cast any issue on contributory negligence. In any event, considering the nature of proceedings, even if pleadings are liberally construed, there is no evidence to suggest any contributory negligence or that the husband of the deceased, Manoj, who was driving the motorcycle, did not have a valid license. Therefore, the plea of contributory negligence cannot be accepted in this matter. 11. Insofar as the determination of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has noted that the deceased Anjali had a dairy business. Appreciating the evidence, the Tribunal did not accept the claimants’ case that her monthly income was Rs. 6000/-, but held that Anjali’s monthly income was Rs. 3000/-. No addition was, however, made towards future prospects, which was necessary in terms of the decisions in Sarla Verma (supra) and Pranay Sethi (supra). ( 2026:JHHC:21247 ) 4 12. Since Anjali did not have a regular job, addition of 40% was due. Anjali’s monthly earnings would therefore be taken as Rs. 4200/- which corresponds to the yearly income of Rs. 50,400/-. In this case, deduction of 1/3rd towards her personal expenses would be appropriate, considering that the 1st claimant was her father-in-law. Upon such deduction, Anjali’s yearly income should be taken at Rs. 33,600/-. Mr Ashutosh Anand is justified in contending that the multiplier in this case should be 17 and not 18 as adopted by the Tribunal in the impugned order. The compensation towards dependency would therefore come to Rs. 5,71,200/-. 13. With the above amount, the claimant would be entitled to compensation for consortium of Rs. 40,000/- in respect of each of the claimants, i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/-. In addition, the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- for loss of estate and another Rs. 15,000/- for funeral expenses. The award of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of love, care and guidance to the children and funeral expenses would be subsumed in the above. 14. The just compensation in this case would therefore come to Rs. 7,61,200/. Therefore, though the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, the appellant-Insurance Company will have to pay compensation of Rs. 7,61,200/- after adjusting the statutory deposit amount paid or deposited by the appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal. This amount will now have to be paid equally to the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The orders for investment are vacated since it is reported by the learned counsel for the claimants that the three children have now attained majority. 15. The appellant Insurance Company must deposit the compensation amount as determined above, after adjusting the amount already deposited or paid, with ( 2026:JHHC:21247 ) 5 simple interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till actual payment, in this Court, within six weeks after due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants. Once the amount is deposited, the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the same by furnishing their identity and bank details. 16. The Registry is directed to transfer the amount directly into the claimants’ bank account. Under no circumstances is any transfer permitted other than through the regular banking channels. 17. Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are also permitted to withdraw the compensation already deposited by the appellant Insurance Company before the Tribunal by following the same procedure. Neither the Registry of this Court nor the Tribunal should allow any withdrawal otherwise than through the regular banking channels. 18. 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 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 22.07.2026