Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22709 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 493 of 2016 1. Mostt. Kumari Sangita, wife of Late Ranjit Satyarthi 2. Monika Satyarthi, daughter of Late Ranjit Satyarthi 3. Badal Satyarthi, son of Late Ranjit Satyarthi The appellant no. 3, late a minor has attained the age of majority. All permanent resident of Mohalla: Lal Chowk, Rajdhanwar, Post and P.S. Rajdhanwar, District-Giridih ... Applicants/Appellants Versus 1. Manoj Kumar Pandey, son of Laxmi Pandey, resident of village and post: Badgaon, P.S.- Eta Khori District-Chatra (Jharkhand) 2. Ajay Kumar Nirala, son of Dineshwar Rai, Resident of village Phulotand, Post-Bandhi, P.S. Hirodih, District-Giridih 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Registered and Head Office A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, P.S. Asaf Ali Road, Post- New Delhi-110002, Through its Hazaribagh Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, B-24, City Centre, Sector-4, Post and P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District-Bokaro (Jharkhand) ... Opposite Parties/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellants: Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Mrs D. Arati Kumari, Advocate Mr Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr Rakesh Verma, Advocate For Resp. No.3: Mr Manish Kumar, Advocate --------- 18/Dated: 31.07.2026 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants-claimants have challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 6th of April 2015 in M.V. Claim Case No. 61 of 2010 on the ground that the compensation awarded is too meagre. 3. In this case, the Tribunal has relied on the gross salary certificate indicating that the deceased drew Rs. 17,380/- per month. However, the Tribunal proceeded to deduct from this amount towards Loan, LIC payment and estimated the annual salary at only Rs. 11,237/- per month. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22709 4. The deductions towards Loan and LIC payment were not justified. At the highest, a deduction of Rs. 915/- towards PF and EWF could have been made. 5. Thus, the estimated annual salary of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs. 1,97,580/- instead of Rs. 1,34,844/-. 6. The Tribunal failed to add 15% for future prospects. An additional Rs. 29,637/- would therefore be due, and the deceased's annual income, who was 54 years old at the time of the accident, will have to be taken as Rs. 2,27,217/-. 7. The deduction of 1/3rd will have to be made towards the expenses that the deceased would have incurred for himself. This corresponds to Rs. 75,739/-. After the deduction, the deceased’s annual income will have to be taken at Rs. 1,51,478/-. 8. The multiplier in this case would be 11. The loss of dependency would therefore come to Rs. 16,66,258/-. The claimants would be entitled to compensation towards consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- towards each of the claimants, i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- in all. Rs 15,000/- is due towards funeral expenses and another Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. 9. Thus, the total compensation would come to Rs. 18,16,258/- in terms of the evidence on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. DTC, (2009) 6 SCC 121, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. 10. Mr Rakesh Verma, the learned counsel for the owner/driver of the insured vehicle, submitted that the liability has been incorrectly Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:22709 foisted upon the parties he represents by making a pay and recovery order. However, the owner/driver has neither appealed nor filed any cross-objection in this matter. In the absence of either, it will not be appropriate to go into this issue in this appeal. However, all contentions in this regard are kept open. 11. Mr Manish Kumar also states that the Tribunal has already made a pay and recovery order. Since I am not going into this issue, all contentions in this regard are kept open. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs. 8,16,064 to Rs. 18,16,258/-. 13. The respondent-Insurance Company, after deducting the amount already paid, must deposit the balance amount within six weeks from today after giving due notice to the learned counsel for the appellants. 14. Upon deposit, the appellants will be entitled to withdraw the said amount by furnishing identity and bank details. The Registry must transfer the compensation/interest amount directly into the bank accounts of the claimants. 15. Under no circumstances should the transfers be otherwise than through regular banking channels. 16. The appeal is disposed of without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) July 31, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 03.08.2026