Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:12089 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 84 of 2023 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, having its office Near Jain Petrol Supply Company, Hazaribag, P.O., P.S.- Hazaribag, District- Hazaribag, through Authorized Signatory Niraj Kumar, S/o Sri Ran Vijay Prasad, Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Legal Hub, Ranchi (Legal Department), Prabodh Tower, 3rd Floor, S. N. Gaguli Road, P.O. - GPO, P.S. Kotwali, District - Ranchi. ...... Opposite Party/Appellant Versus 1. Usha Devi, Wife of Vinay Prasad Verma, aged about- 43 years, 2. Vinay Prasad, Son of Bandhan Ram Kushwaha, aged about- 48 years, Both are resident of village Nawada Basti, P.O. Jhumari Telaiya, P.S.- Telaiya, District- Koderma. ...... Applicant/Respondents 3. Jagdeo Mahto, Son of Late Dewki Mahto, Resident of village- Pachamo, P.O.- Rahawan, P.S.- Bokaro, District- Bokaro. (Owner of Truck bearing registration No. JH-02AF-4881) 4. Surydeo Singh, Son of Tilakdhari Singh, Resident of - Bank More Dhanbad, Cum-Kenduadih, Gumja Gate, Dhanbad, P.S.-Bank More, P.O. and District- Dhanbad. (Driver of Truck bearing registration No. JH-02AF-4881). ...... Opposite Parties/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Appellant: Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1&2: Mr. Achinto Sen, Advocate --------- 05/Dated: 24.04.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. With the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. The Records and Proceedings are also available. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:12089 3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 17th of December 2022 made by the Tribunal at Koderma, awarding compensation of Rs.37,24,000/- with interest @ 6.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realisation of the compensation amount. This compensation has been awarded to the parents of deceased Sandeep Kumar, who was aged 24 years old when he died in a vehicular accident involving a truck bearing Registration No.JH-02A-4881, which was admittedly insured with the appellant-Company. 4. Mr Prabhat Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company, submitted that the only evidence produced for Sandeep’s income was his latest Income Tax Return showing a gross total income of Rs. 2,93,580/-. He submitted that, since it was claimed that Sandeep was a Municipal Contractor, some work orders, measurement sheets, etc., to show that Sandeep was doing the work of a contractor should have been produced. In the absence of any such production, then, an adverse interference should have been drawn, and Sandeep’s income could not have been taken at Rs. 2,90,000/- per year. He submitted that this was an exaggerated figure and that the Tribunal erred in accepting the same. 5. Mr Achinto Sen, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that there was both oral and documentary evidence that Sandeep was a registered Grade-IV Contractor (Ext. X/9). He submitted that three years’ Income Tax Returns were also filed as evidence of income. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:12089 Accordingly, there was no reason for filing any further evidence. The oral and documentary evidence already on the record was sufficient to determine Sandeep’s income. 6. Mr Sen pointed out that a consortium of only Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded, whereas this amount should have been awarded to both the claimants, in light of the law laid down in Magma General Insurance Co. Versus Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130. 7. The rival contentions now fall for determination. 8. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the determination of Sandeep’s income and the consequent computation of compensation. 9. There is oral evidence about the deceased Sandeep being a Grade-IV Contractor undertaking works for the Government of Jharkhand and its instrumentalities. Registration Certificate No. 02364210317, issued by the Government, was admitted into evidence and marked as Ext. X/9. 10. In addition to the above, certificates showing Sandeep’s educational qualifications, his PAN Card, and Aadhaar Card were also produced on record. Most crucially, Income Tax Returns for the three years preceding his unfortunate demise in a road accident for the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2017-18 and 2018-19 were also produced on record. The cross-examination on the aspect of income is quite sketchy and has made no dent in either the oral or the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the claimants. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:12089 11. Once the above oral and documentary evidence was produced, there was no further requirement to produce any work orders, measurement sheets, etc. It is unlikely that Sandeep could have obtained contractor registration and filed income taxes regularly for three years if he was not such a contractor or not drawing such income. The last Income Tax Return shows Sandeep’s gross total income for the Assessment Year 2018-19 at Rs.2,93,580/-. Based upon the same, the Tribunal cannot be faulted for accepting Sandeep’s annual income at Rs. 2,90,000/-. 12. The compensation has been computed in terms of the law laid down in Sarla Verma and Others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr, (2009) 6 SCC 12, and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680. However, compensation to the consortium is only Rs. 40,000/-, whereas it should have been Rs. 40,000/- towards each of the claimants, i.e. the parents of deceased Sandeep. 13. To that extent, the compensation amount is now enhanced by Rs. 40,000/-. Even this enhanced amount shall carry interest as awarded in the impugned award. 14. This appeal is dismissed, but with the compensation amount enhanced by Rs. 40,000/-, together with interest @ 6.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization. Neutral Citation No. 2026:JHHC:12089 15. The original compensation amount is deposited before the Tribunal. Directions are now issued to deposit the enhanced amount together with interest before the Tribunal within six weeks from today. 16. The claimants are allowed to withdraw the compensation amount, together with interest, which has already been deposited, by furnishing their identity and bank details. 17. The amount should be transferred into the claimants’ bank accounts directly. 18. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms without any order for costs. 19. Once the additional amount is deposited and proof of deposit is produced in this Court, the Registry shall refund the statutory deposit amount of Rs. 25,000/-, together with any interest that may have accrued thereon, to the appellant-Insurance Company. 20. Pending interim applications, if any, will not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) April 24, 2026 N.A.F.R. Manoj/Sharda/Cp.2 Uploaded on 24-Apr-26