Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11262 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 92 of 2019 1. Indu Sharma, aged about 42 years, wife of Satyendra Sharma, 2. Satyendra Sharma, aged about 45 years, son of Kanhaiya Lal Sharma Both are residents of Gujrat Colony, P.O. and P.S. Chas, District Bokaro. ... Appellants Versus 1. Prabha Dey wife of Late N.C. Dey, resident of Budhuwa Mahadeo Mandir Road, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh- 825301 (owner of the Bus No. JH-02X-9311). 2. Anil Pandey son of Late Ram Saran Pandey, at presently residing C/o Prabha Dey, Budhuwa Mahadeo Mandir Road, P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh- 825301. Permanent resident of Konar Dam, P.O. and P.S. Vishnugarh, District Hazaribagh (driver of Bus No. JH-02X-9311). 3. M/s. New India Insurance Company Limited, represented through Divisional Manager, Sheela Sadan, City Centre, Sector-IV, B.S. City, vide Policy No. 54110031140100002806 valid from 16.11.2014 to 15.11.2015 (Insurance of Bus No. JH-02X-9311). ... Opposite Parties/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellants: Mr Vivek Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr Ramakant Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondents: Alok Lal, Advocate Mr Manoj Kumar, Advocate Mr Rahul Pandey, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 18.04.2026 I.A. No. 2346 of 2020 1. This I.A. seeks condonation of delay of 120 days in filing the appeal. 2. On perusing the averments in the I.A., the sufficient cause can be said to have been made out. Accordingly, delay is condoned this I.A. is disposed of. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11262 M.A. No. 92 of 2019 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. By a separate order in I.A. No. 2346 of 2020, the delay in instituting this appeal has been condoned. 5. With the consent of and at the request counsel for the parties, the appeal is being taken up for final disposal. 6. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.07.2018 made by the MACT, Bokaro (Tribunal) in Title Motor Vehicle Suit No.20 of 2016. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in determining the compensation, no addition has been made towards future prospect, the compensation towards consortium is also inadequate and further, interest has been awarded from the date of the award and not from the date of institution of the claim petition. 8. Mr Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, submits that there is no fault in determination of the compensation. He submits that, in fact, some additional amounts have been awarded which were not due and payable in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 121. He further submits that reasons have been given why interest was awarded only from the date of the award and not from the date of the claim petition, which warrants no interference. 9. Since no other grounds were urged, the rival contentions are now considered hereafter. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11262 10. From the impugned award, it does appear that no allowance has been made towards future prospects and the compensation has been determined on the premise that the monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 7,000/-. 11. In terms of Sarla Verma (supra), 40% should have been added towards the future prospects. This means the deceased's income should have been taken at Rs. 9,800/-. The deduction of 50% was warranted because the deceased was a bachelor and would have presumably spent this amount on himself. The multiplier in this case would be 18 since the deceased was 20 years old at the time of his demise in the accident. 12. The compensation towards dependency would therefore come to Rs.10,58,400/-. To this, compensation towards the consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- for each of the claimants will have to be added. Besides, Rs. 15,000/- will have to be paid towards funeral expenses and another Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of the estate. 13. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellants, even after evaluating Mr Lal’s contention regarding the additional amount, would come to Rs. 11,68,400/-, which would represent just compensation in the facts of this case. 14. The claim petition was instituted on 23.02.2016 and was disposed of by the impugned award dated 16.07.2018. There is no evidence of the appellants delaying the disposal of the claim petition. The claim petition itself was disposed of within a reasonable period. Accordingly, there was no case made out for departing from the usual rule of awarding interest from the date of the claim petition. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:11262 Accordingly, 6% p.a. interest on the above compensation amount will have to be paid from the date of the institution of the claim petition and not merely from the date of the award. 15. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. The compensation payable is now determined at Rs. 11,68,400/-, the same shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the institution of the claim petition on 23.02.2016 until payment. 16. Mr Lal states that the compensation under the impugned judgment and award has already been paid. 17. If so, the Insurance Company will have to only pay the differential amount after reworking the same in terms of this judgment and order. The differential amount should now be deposited in this Court within six weeks from today, after giving due intimation to the learned counsel for the appellants. 18. Upon deposit, the Registry will ensure that the same is transferred to the appellants’ bank accounts after verifying the identity and bank details, as the learned counsel for the appellants assures, will be supplied to the Registry. 19. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 20. No order for costs. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) April 18, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 20-Apr-26