2026:JHHC:2532 -1 of 12- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 2025 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Divisional office at Kamani Centre, Bistupur, P.O. and P.S. Bistupur, Town- Jamshedpur, Jharkhand (Insurer of offending vehicle, Trailer bearing Registration No.CG-13AK- 4866) represented through its Manager and Incharge T.P. Hub, Ranchi, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sethi Corporate, P.P. Compound, Ranchi, P.O.- Chutia, P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. … … Opposite Party No.2/Appellant Versus 1. Kumari Arti, wife of Late Mithilesh Jha, aged about 38 years 2. Anchal Jha, D/o Late Mithilesh Jha, aged about 12 years. 3. Ayansh Jha, son of Late Mithilesh Jha, aged about 02 years 4. Abhay Nath Jha, son of Late Vijay Nath Jha, aged about 73 years 5. Renu Jha, wife Abhay Nath Jha, aged about 63 years Respondent/Applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are minors and they are represented by their natural guardian i.e. Applicant No.1, who is their mother and natural guardian. All are resident of Flat No. 403, Delta Srinath Residency, Marine Drive, Kadma, P.O. and P.S. Kadma, Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. .......... Applicants/Respondents 6. M/s. Vedanta Washery & Logistics Solution Pvt. Ltd., Kunkuni Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh - 496001 (Owner of offending Vehicle Trailer bearing Registration No.CG-13AK-4866) … Applicant/Respondent With C.O. No. 15 of 2025 1. Kumari Arti, wife of Mithilesh Jha, aged about 38 years, 2. Anchal Jha, daughter of Late Mithilesh Jha, aged about 12 years, 3. Ayansh Jha, son of Late Mithilesh Jha, aged about 2 years, 4. Renu Jha, wife of Sri Abhay Nath Jha, aged about 63 years, Cross Objectors No. 2 and 3 are minors and they are represented by their natural guardian i.e. Cross Objector No.1, who is their mother; All are residents of Flat No. 403, Delta Srinath Residence, Marine Drive, Kadma, PO & PS- Kadma, Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) …. Respondent No. 1 to 5/Claimants/Cross Objectors Versus 1. New India Assurance Company Ltd., having its Divisional Office at Kamani CentrE, Bistupur, PO & PS- Bistupur, Town - Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand), through its Manager and Incharge T.P. Hub, Ranchi, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2nd Floor, Sethi Corporate, P.P. Compound, Ranchi, P.O.- Chutia, P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi, Jharkhand .. .. Appellant/Opposite Party No. 2/Respondent No.1 2026:JHHC:2532 -2 of 12- 2. M/s. Vedanta Washery & Logistic Solutions Private Limited, P.O. & P.S. Kunkuni Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh- 496001 (owner of offending vehicle Trailer bearing registration No. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-13-AK-4866). ….. …. Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.2 --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Insurance Co. : Mr. G.C. Jha, Advocate For the Claimants : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Jain, Advocate For the Owner : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate Mr. Agnivesh, Advocate --------- 07/Dated: 30.01.2026 1. Heard Mr. G. C. Jha, learned counsel for the appellant (Insurance Company), Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 (claimants) and Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 (owner of the vehicle) in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 298 of 2025. 2. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the claimants, points out that the 4th respondent, Abhay Nath Jha, has since expired. Although there is no formal application to bring his legal representatives on record, Mr G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that such legal representatives are already on record and, therefore, this circumstance may be treated as substantial compliance. The contention is well-founded and, appropriately, not opposed by Mr Amit Kumar Das or Mr Vikas Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, we allow the request. 3. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 298 of 2025 is instituted by the appellant- Insurance Company and Cross Objection No. 15 of 2025 has been instituted by the claimants. Therefore, it is only appropriate that the Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of by this common judgment and order, as they ought to be so disposed of. 2026:JHHC:2532 -3 of 12- 4. The Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objection challenge the judgment and Award dated 26.11.2024 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 91 of 2022 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur (Tribunal). The appellant-Insurance Company challenges this Award on the ground that this was a case of contributory negligence, wherein the deceased Mithilesh Jha or rather, the driver of the vehicle in which Mithilesh Jha was travelling, contributed to the accident at least to the extent of 50 per cent. The other ground raised by the appellant- Insurance Company is that when calculating Mithilesh Jha’s income, the deduction towards income tax has not been accounted for, resulting in an award of excess compensation. 5. On the other hand, the claimants challenge the impugned Award to the extent it rejects the claimant’s case that Mithilesh Jha’s income was Rs. 4,42,000/- per month. There is also a challenge for the non-award of compensation to the consortium to each of the claimants. 6. Mr G.C. Jha, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, submitted that there is a complete variance between the F.I.R. filed by Mithilesh Jha’s cousin on 18.01.2022 and the ultimate charge- sheet filed against the Driver of the offending trailer bearing registration No. CG-13-AK-4866. He submitted that even if the case set out in the charge-sheet is accepted, the same clearly supports the contention that this was a case of contributory negligence. He submitted that, if this Court were to go by the F.I.R., this was a case of a head-on collision. However, if this Court were to rely on the charge-sheet, it would be a case where the vehicle in which Mithilesh Jha was travelling collided with the offending vehicle from behind. In either case, Mr. Jha submitted that this was a case of res ipsa loquitur establishing contributory negligence of the two vehicles 2026:JHHC:2532 -4 of 12- to the extent of 50 per cent each. Mr. Jha relied upon T.O. Anthony Vs. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3 SCC 748 and Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and Ors., (2011) 3 TAC 12 (SC) to support his contentions on contributory negligence. 7. Mr. Jha, then submitted that the Tribunal while assessing Mithilesh Jha’s annual income at Rs. 9,56,807/- as paid to him without any deduction towards income tax. He referred to Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 (para 24) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 (para-44) to submit that income would mean actual income less the tax paid. He submitted that since the Tribunal has taken the average annual income for 5 years before the demise of Mithilesh Jha in the vehicular accident, the tax deduction should be also taken on the same basis and would come approximately Rs.90,000/-. Mr Jha also took pains to point out that not all income tax returns for the previous five years were produced, and that income tax returns for two years were omitted. 8. Mr Jha submitted that, after deducting income tax, the annual income could, at the highest, be taken to be approximately Rs. 8,50,000/-. He submitted that, correspondingly, the compensation amount would fall within the range of Rs. 90 to 95 lakhs, and not Rs. 1,26,42,098/- awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and Award. 9. For the above reasons, Mr. Jha submitted that the impugned Award may be interfered with and modified accordingly. 10. Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the claimants, defended the impugned Award to the extent it rejects the argument based on contributory negligence by relying upon the reasoning therein. He further 2026:JHHC:2532 -5 of 12- pointed out that there was clear evidence on record that Mithilesh Jha was not driving the vehicle that collided with the offending vehicle. Therefore, he submitted that the Insurance Company was confusing between the two distinct concepts of composite negligence and contributory negligence. He submitted that the appellant-Insurance Company’s argument, even if taken at its face value, suggested composite negligence. He submitted that, in such a case, the claimants may elect to proceed against any of the tortfeasors. In any event, he submitted that it would be open to the Insurance Company to file independent proceedings against the other alleged tortfeasors. 11. Mr. Das, however, submitted that the above contention was strictly without prejudice because in this case, there was no case of either contributory or composite negligence established. He submitted that the evidence on record very clearly establishes the negligence of the Driver of the trailer, i.e. the insured vehicle. 12. Mr. Das, while not disputing the principle that the income of the deceased must be the actual income less the tax paid, submitted that in this case there was credible evidence to show that the income of the deceased was Rs. 4,42,000/- per month. He submitted that there was evidence about the deceased being the Vice-President of a Company and the Director of another. There was evidence about Rs. 3,50,000/- being credited into the bank account of the deceased each month commencing from 31.07.2021 i.e. almost six months before the accident and demise on 17.01.2022. He submitted that the Director of the Company of which the deceased was the Executive Vice-President (Marketing) was also clear and categorical. He submitted that his oral and documentary evidence was incorrectly rejected by the Tribunal and the income of the deceased should 2026:JHHC:2532 -6 of 12- have been taken at Rs. 4,42,000/- per month, no doubt after making allowances for making payment of income. He submitted that normally an amount of 10 per cent should be taken as deduction towards income tax in such matters. 13. Mr. Das also submitted that compensation towards consortium was required to be awarded for each of the claimants and not just the amount of Rs. 48,000/- as has been awarded. He submitted that this position is clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Yadav & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 9233 of 2022 and in Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130. Accordingly, he submitted that parental and filial consortium for which the Tribunal has failed to award must be awarded by this Court. He submitted that the compensation towards consortium could therefore, come to Rs. 2,40,000/- and not merely Rs.48,000/-. 14. Mr. Vikas Kumar, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, submitted that the trailer was insured with the appellant-Insurance company and since there was no breach of any of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the 6th respondent. As regards the rival contentions, learned counsel submitted that as long as no liability is being fastened upon the 6th respondent, he has no submissions to make. 15. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 16. This is a case where Mithilesh Jha, aged about 42 years died in a road accident on 17.01.2022 while travelling to Odisha from Bilaspur. He left behind his widow, Kumari Arti, then aged approximately 38 years; his daughter, Anchal Jha, then aged approximately 12 years; his son, Ayansh 2026:JHHC:2532 -7 of 12- Jha, then aged approximately 2 years; and his parents, aged 73 and 63 years, respectively. During the pendency of this appeal, the father, Abhay Nath Jha, has expired, and the other claimants are his legal representatives. 17. The fact of the accident is correctly not disputed. The only argument advanced by the Insurance Company is that this was a case of contributory negligence because, in terms of the F.I.R. filed by the cousin of the deceased, this was a case of a head-on collision. However, the case in the charge-sheet is different. In that, it was alleged that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling collided with the offending trailer from behind. Mr Jha submitted that, considering both the contradictory versions, it is apparent that this was a case of contributory negligence in which the deceased was travelling, contributing to the accident to the extent of 50 per cent. 18. At the outset, it is necessary to note two factors. Firstly, this defence of contributory negligence was very cursorily raised, based upon which Issue No. IV was framed and answered against the appellant-Insurance Company. Secondly, there is evidence on record that the deceased was not driving the vehicle in which he was travelling. That vehicle was being driven by Kumar Nirmaldeep (AW2). Therefore, this cannot be a case of contributory negligence and, at best, a case of composite negligence. 19. In T.O. Anthony (Supra), relied upon by Mr. Jha, the difference between contributory negligence and composite negligence has been explained. In case of composite negligence, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. The injured need not even establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong 2026:JHHC:2532 -8 of 12- doer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong doer separately. On the other hand, where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stand reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. On this fundamental ground itself, the argument about contributory negligence must be rejected. 20. In any event, the Tribunal has answered Issue No. IV against the appellant-Insurance Company. For this, the Tribunal has assessed the evidence on record. The Tribunal has also noted that the Driver of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling has deposed in the matter, but the Insurance Company, which now raises this plea, did not bother to examine any witness on the aspect of either contributory or composite negligence. Significantly, even the Driver of the offending vehicle, who was criminally prosecuted, was not examined. 21. Since Mr Jha invokes the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it needs to be recorded that even this principle does not support the Insurance Company's case but rather supports the claimants' case. There is evidence that the offending vehicle abruptly changed lanes and stopped on the highway. The evidence on record establishes that this was the main reason why the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling collided with the offending vehicle at 11:30 P.M. on the night intervening 17 and 18th January 2022. The evidence also shows that criminal proceedings were instituted against the Driver of the offending vehicle. All these materials are sufficient to reject the argument based on contributory negligence. Accordingly, the contention based on contributory negligence is hereby rejected. 2026:JHHC:2532 -9 of 12- 22. Insofar as the issue of the quantum of compensation is concerned, there is evidence that the deceased was employed as the Executive Vice- President of a Company and as a Director of another. The Director of the Company, of which the deceased was the Vice-President, has deposed in this matter. A letter of appointment has also been produced. The articles and memorandum of association of the company also referred the Directorship of the deceased. The appointment letter refers to a monthly remuneration of Rs. 3,50,000/-for the deceased, who was appointed as an Executive Vice President (Marketing). There is evidence of the Company making payments of Rs. 92,000/- per month to the deceased, who was a Director. 23. Upon assessing the evidence, it is true that the appointment order is not supported by any company resolution. Similarly, the payment of Rs.92,000/- per month was neither reflected in the income tax returns nor in the Bank’s statements produced by the claimants. This amount was credited to the Bank after the demise of Mithilesh Jha. The Tribunal has correctly rejected this part of the evidence and refused to consider his alleged income of Rs.92,000/- per month. 24. Insofar as the income of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month is concerned, it is true that the appointment letter was not backed by any company resolution. However, for the period from July 2021 to December 2022, the Bank statements indicate periodic deposits. Besides, the Director of the Company in which the deceased was examined, and has also deposed that the deceased was paid a salary of Rs. 3,50,000/- per month. This is not a case where the amount was credited to the deceased's bank account only after his demise, thereby creating post hoc evidence of inflated income. 2026:JHHC:2532 -10 of 12- 25. Therefore, although certain suspicious circumstances may be suggested, there was no basis to reduce the deceased's income to less than Rs. 1 lac per month, based on the income tax returns produced on record on behalf of the claimants. Admittedly, the deceased was appointed as an Executive Vice-President sometime in July 2021. He died in an accident in January 2022. His income at the time of his death is relevant. Considering the periodic deposits in the Bank account from 31.07.2021, the income of the deceased should have been taken at a minimum of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month and not merely Rs. 9,56,807/- per annum. This would be the reasonable estimate even after accounting for the suspicious circumstances pointed out by Mr Jha, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, or so far as suspicious circumstances noted by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and Award. 26. If the monthly income is taken at Rs.1,50,000/-, annual income would come to Rs.18,00,000/-. From this, at least 10 per cent would have to be deducted towards income tax, resulting in the annual income being Rs. 16,20,000/-. The deceased was 42 years at the time of his demise. Therefore, an addition of 30 per cent, and not merely 25 per cent, would be due to future prospects. This would take the figure to Rs. 21,06,000/-. From this amount, approximately 25 per cent must be deducted for personal expenses the deceased incurred. This would take the figure to Rs.15,79,500/-. 27. In this case, there is no dispute that the multiplier would be 14. Therefore, compensation for dependency would amount to Rs. 2,21,13,000. In view of the law laid down in Harpreet Kaur (supra) and Magma General Insurance Company Limited (supra), compensation to the consortium would be Rs. 2,40,000/-, and not merely Rs. 48,000/-. 2026:JHHC:2532 -11 of 12- 28. Thus, the total compensation payable in this case would come to Rs. 2,23,89,480/-. 29. For all the above reasons, the Appeal of the Insurance Company is hereby dismissed. The Cross Objection is partly allowed, and the compensation amount is enhanced from Rs.1,26,42,098/- to Rs.2,23,89,480/-. The interest awarded is maintained. 30. In so far as apportionment is concerned, the same is correct. However, now that Abhay Nath Jha has expired, the compensation apportioned in his favour should now be shared by the remaining claimants in equal proportions. The orders for fixed deposits are also maintained. If Anchal Jha and Ayansh Jha urgently require any amount, they are at liberty to apply to the Tribunal for withdrawal after making up a case in that regard. 31. The Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of in the above terms. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, are hereby disposed of. No order for costs. 32. Mr. Jha, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, says that the amount of Rs.60,00,000/- deposited by them have already been disbursed to the claimants. 33. Mr. Das is unaware of the disbursement. However, if the amounts are still lying with the Tribunal or this Court, then, they should be paid to the claimants by transferring them in their bank accounts. 34. Further, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to now deposit the enhanced compensation amount before the Tribunal within two months from today unless they obtain any interim relief in the meanwhile. Such a deposit should be made after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the claimants. Upon deposit, and in the absence of any legal 2026:JHHC:2532 -12 of 12- impediment, such as a stay order, the Tribunal should disburse the amount to the claimants by transferring it to their bank accounts. 35. All disbursements should be made by transferring funds directly into the Bank accounts of the claimants/guardians. Enhanced amount to be deposited after accounting for the payments already made/deposited. The amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company as a precondition for filing this Appeal (statutory deposit), should now be transferred to the Tribunal so that it can be disbursed and accounted for. 36. The Appeal and the Cross Objection are disposed of without any order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) 30.01.2026 APK/VK Uploaded on 04.02.2026