( 2026:JHHC:11074 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 47 of 2019 With I.A. No. 11106 of 2025 Pardeep Kumar @ Pardeep Kumar Yadav, aged about 22 years, son of Jagarnath Yadav, resident of Village- Jogidih, P.O. + P.S.- Hiring+Hunterganj, District- Chatra. ... ... Appellant Versus The New India Assurance Company Ltd. C/o Branch Manager, Laxmi Complex, 2nd Floor, P.O. + P.S.- Hazaribagh, District- Hazaribagh. …. … Respondent ------ CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ------ For the Appellant : Mr Praveen Shankar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr Pratyush Kumar, Advocate : Ms Taru Gupta, Advocate Mr Vishwajeetjee Chaturvedi, Advocate ----- 15 /Dated: 17.04.2026 1. I.A. No. 11106 of 2025 is allowed and the 1st respondent is allowed to be deleted, subject to the risk and consequences of the appellant. 2. Necessary amendment to be carried out forthwith. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of finally. 5. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 12.10.2018 to the extent it has awarded the appellant herein the total compensation of only Rs. 3,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, if the compensation amount was not paid within two months from the date of service of the order. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation amount is too meagre, considering the appellant suffered 55% disability, was admitted to the hospital for five months and bedridden for one year. ( 2026:JHHC:11074 ) 2 7. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was a Deed Writer at Civil Court, earning Rs.6500/- per month and due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and fracture of the right femur. He submitted that medical expenses of at least Rs. 4,00,000/- should have been awarded and further, general compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards pain suffering and loss of earnings should have also been awarded. 8. Mr Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that the claimant, Pardeep Kumar, examined himself, but did not turn up for cross-examination. Hardly any creditworthy documents were produced to establish medical expenses. He, therefore, submitted that the compensation of Rs. 3,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, based upon some guesswork, would not be further enhanced in this appeal. 9. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 10. The evidence on record shows that the appellant, Pardeep Kumar, was 22 years old at the time of the accident. There is some evidence that he worked as a Deed Writer, though there is no clarity on his earnings. 11. Even if oral evidence is not considered, there is documentary evidence of the appellant’s admission to the hospital for five months, and considering the nature of the injuries, which are duly supported by medical records, it is possible that the appellant was bedridden for some time. 12. Towards medical expenses, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,25,000/- towards the general compensation, which would include pain suffering, loss of earnings, etc. 13. Considering the nature of the evidence on record, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for restricting the compensation to medical expenses, and for ( 2026:JHHC:11074 ) 3 determining the compensation for medical expenses at Rs. 2,00,000/-. However, compensation of only Rs. 1,25,000/- towards general compensation, which would include pain suffering, loss of earnings, etc., appears to be conservative in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. Since the appellant was admitted to the hospital for five months and thereafter bedridden, it is obvious that he must have suffered a lot of pain and discomfort during this entire period. The medical certificate refers to disability of 55%, but considering that the appellant had suffered a fracture to his leg and his work was that of a Deed Writer, the functional disability would be much lower. Still, considering the period of his hospitalisation and his bedridden state, some additional compensation is due for loss of income, at least during this period. Further, some additional compensation is also due towards pain and suffering. Therefore, the compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- awarded as a general compensation can be enhanced to Rs. 2,25,000/-. 15. Thus, total compensation payable to the appellant would be Rs. 4,25,000/- instead of Rs. 3,25,000/-. This would represent just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. This amount of Rs. 4,25,000/- should be paid by the Insurance Company to the appellant within four weeks from today. This compensation of Rs. 4,25,000/- shall now carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition until payment / deposit. The insurance company is directed to deposit the above compensation within four weeks in this Court with due intimation to the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. Mr Pratyush Kumar states that as per his instructions, the awarded amount is already deposited before the Tribunal. If so, only the differential ( 2026:JHHC:11074 ) 4 amount needs to be deposited in this Court within four weeks after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the appellant. 18. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount if it has not already been withdrawn from the Tribunal. Similarly, once the differential amount is deposited by the Insurance Company in this Court with intimation to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same after furnishing identity and Bank details to the Registry of this Court, so that the amount can be directly transferred into his Bank account. 19. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms, without any order for costs. 20. The pending I.As, if any, are disposed of. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) April 17, 2026 Ranjeet / R.Kr. NAFR Uploaded on 20.04.2026