Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5188 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 207 of 2024 The United India Insurance Co Ltd, Vyapar Bhawan, Floor No.1, Lalji Hirji Road, Main Road, Ranchi, Divisional Office, Ranchi, PO- Ranchi, PS- Daily Market, Dist.- Ranchi, Jharkhand Pin 834001. ... (OP)/Defendant No.2/Appellant Versus 1. Tulsi Mahto, S/o Late Gujar Mahto, (Husband of Deceased) 2. Payal Kumari, D/o. Tulsi Mahto, (Daughter of deceased) Both 1 &2 are R/o Vill.- Behera, PS.- Charhi, Dist Hazaribagh, at Present Vill Hesal, PO & P.S Angara, Dist Ranchi, Jharkhand. … Claimants no. 1 & 2/Respondent No.1-2 3. Vinod Kumar Yadav, S/o Kameshwar Prasad Yadav, R/o Karmakhurd, PO- Rajauli, PS- Sirdala, District- Nawada (Bihar) 805125, (Owner of Offending Vehicle Truck No. BR-27E-2515) ... Defendant No.1/Respondent No.3 --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate Mrs. D. Arati Kumari, Advocate Mr. Shivam Singh Kashyap, Advocate Mr. Shiwam Lath, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 20.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Mukesh Kumar Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 (claimants). 2. Mr Dubey, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant-Insurance Company, has appealed the impugned award dated 22.02.2024 passed in M.A.C. Case No. 241 of 2020 only on one ground. He submits that the Tribunal, in this case, has taken the age of deceased Bilo Devi as 42 years based on the postmortem report. However, the Tribunal has ignored the pleadings of the claimants, the Aadhar Card and the Death Certificate, which show that her age was 55 years and not 42 years. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5188 3. Mr Arvind Kumar Lall, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants i.e. husband and daughters of deceased Bilo Devi, accepts that recording the age of the deceased as 42 years was an error. Very fairly, he does not object correction of the error in this appeal. 4. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is partly allowed by recording the age of deceased Bilo Devi as 55 years in substitution of the erroneously recorded age of 42 years in the impugned award. 5. Based upon the above corrections, the compensation in this case will have to be re-worked out as follows: - SN Heads As per the Award (Rs.) As per case of Appellant (Rs.) 1 Net Annual Income of deceased (minimum wages) 7000 x 12 84,000.00 84,000.00 2 Add - Future Prospect @ (25%) / (10%) 21,000.00 8,400.00 Total Income 1,05,000.00 92,400.00 3 Less - personal expenses (1/3rd) 35,000.00 30,800.00 4 Total 70,000.00 61,600.00 5  Multiplier 14 as per award.  Multiplier 11 as per case of Appellant, since, admittedly, date of birth of deceased as per Award taken on the basis of PM Report is 42 Yrs and as per WS and Aadhar Card is 55 Years. Multiplier 14 Age taken 42 Yrs on the basis of PM Report Multiplier 11 Age 55 Yrs as per Aadhar Card, Death Certificate, Claim Petition and pleadings in W.S. 6 Multiplier (14) / (11) 9,80,000.00 6,77,600.00 7 Under Conventional head 70,000.00 1,10,000.00 8. Add - 10% for every three year -- 22,000.00 Total Compensation 10,50,000.00 8,09,600.00 9 Less - amount paid u/s 140 M.V. Act 50,000.00 50,000.00 Modified Award (with difference of Rs. 2,40,400.00) 10,00,000.00 7,59,600.00 6. The learned counsel for the claimants, once again, fairly accepts that the calculations in the above chart are correct and the impugned award should be modified in terms of such calculations. 7. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. The compensation amount is now determined at Rs. 7,59,600/- instead of Rs. 10,00,000/- Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:5188 awarded by the Tribunal. The rest of the directions for payment of interest, pay and recovery, etc., are maintained. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company states that the compensation amount as per this judgment and order, together with interest thereon, will be paid to the claimants within four weeks from today. For this, the learned counsel for the claimants should furnish identity documents and bank details to the appellant- Insurance Company, and the appellant-Insurance Company must directly transfer the compensation amount to the claimants’ bank accounts. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants states that, within six weeks, the claimants will pay the deficit court fee, if any, to the Tribunal. This statement is accepted. 10. Upon transferring the awarded amount to the claimants and producing proof thereof in this Court by filing a compliance report, the Registry shall return the statutory deposit made by the appellant- Insurance Company, together with any interest that may have accrued on the said amount. 11. Further, it is clarified that if within four weeks from today, the compensation amount is not paid, then the same shall carry interest @ 10% per annum, and this differential interest amount will have to be paid by the Divisional Manager of the appellant-Insurance Company from his own salary. 12. Interim Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) February 20, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 27-Feb-26