2026:JHHC:1237 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Miscellaneous Appeal No. 232 of 2025 The Branch Manager, M/s Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, having its local office at 4th Floor, Dhiren Tower, S.B. Shop Area, Q Road, PO & PS - Bistupur, Jamshedpur, District - East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) - 831001 and also through its Sr. Manager (Legal Claims) Sri. Computer Rath, aged about 39 years, son of M.M. Rath, Presently posted at Thapar House, 4th Floor, 163, S.P. Mukherjee Road, PO & PS - Tollygunj, District - Kolkata - 700026 (West Bengal) [Insurer of the offending Truck Vehicle bearing no. BR-02AA-1962] ... ... ... Opposite Party No. 2/Appellant Versus 1. Lovely Dash, Aged about 42 years, w/o Late Shyam Chandra Dash; 2. Harihar Dash, Aged about 6 years s/o Late Shyam Chandra Dash 3. Renuka Dash, Aged about 17 years d/o Late Shyam Chandra Dash, both minors are represented by their natural guardian and mother, respondent no. 1 namely Lovely Dash, All R/o-Village Krishnapur, PO/PS-Rajnagar, Dist- Saraikela-Kharsawan, Jharkhand-831002 … .. …. Applicants/Respondents 4. Kamta Singh, s/o Shiv Singh, r/o Village - Chandpur, PO Bhaluhar Chaugain, PS - Roushanganj, District - Gaya (Bihar), PIN-824217. [Owner of the offending Truck Vehicle bearing no. BR-02AA-1962] ... Opposite Party No.1/Respondents --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE --------- For the Petitioner: Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate For Resp. Nos.1-3: Mr. Aditya Banerjee, Advocate. For Resp. No.4: None --------- 05 /Dated: 15.01.2026 1. Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (claimants). 2. Respondent No. 4, though served, neither present nor represented. 3. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 21.02.2025 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur awarding the claimants (respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3) compensation of Rs. 41,08,652/- 2026:JHHC:1237 -2- together with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment for the demise of Mr. Shyam Chandra Dash in a vehicular accident on 20.06.2023. 4. The respondent-claimants are the widow Lovely Dash, aged about 42 years, son Harihar Dash, aged about 6 years and daughter Renuka Dash, aged about 17 years. The deceased, Shyam Chandra Dash, was in the business of wholesale trading in tamarind (imli), flaxseed (teesi), and laha. 5. Mrs Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this was a case of contributory negligence because it was the claimant’s own case that the insured vehicle, i.e. truck bearing registration No. BR-02AA-1962 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner without regard for public safety, and the same collided violently with the scooter that was being driven by the deceased Shyam Chandra Dash. She submitted that in such circumstances, contributory negligence had to be inferred because the deceased should have taken due care and precaution to avoid a head-on collision. She relied on Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidya Dhar Dutta and others, (2006) 3 SCC 242 in support of her contention. 6. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted without prejudice, that in determining the compensation amount, no deduction was made from the deceased's income towards income tax. She submitted that the fact that the deceased was carrying on business and such business continued was also not considered. For these reasons, she submitted that the compensation amount awarded is like a bonanza and the same deserves a significant reduction. She relied upon 2026:JHHC:1237 -3- Rani Gupta and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others, (2009) 13 SCC 498 to support this contention. 7. Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that in this case, there was evidence on record that the Driver of the truck involved in the accident had a licence to drive LMV and TR. She submitted that the vehicle was admittedly a truck and therefore would not have been driven by a person possessing no licence to drive heavy vehicles. She submitted that this was a clear breach of the insurance policy terms and, therefore, no liability could have been fastened upon the insurance company. In any event, she submitted that this was a fit case for making pay and recovery or other as was the position before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Zaharulnisha and others, (2008) 12 SCC 385. 8. As per all the above reasons, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned judgment and award warrants interference. 9. Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for the claimants, defended the impugned judgment and award based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that there was no evidence of contributory negligence or of any breach of the insurance policy. He submitted that such a contention was not even raised before the Tribunal. He submitted that there is no evidence that the business continued after the demise of Late Shyam Chandra Dash. He submitted that there is no error in determining the compensation except that compensation towards loss of parental consortium was never awarded to the minor children. He submitted that, to the said extent, the Award deserves to be modified. 2026:JHHC:1237 -4- 10. Rival contentions now fall for determination. 11. This is a case where the deceased Shyam Chandra Dash died in a vehicular accident on 20.06.2023. He was driving the scooty and was dashed by a truck bearing registration No. BR-02AA-1962 because of being driven in a rash and negligent manner without due regard for public safety. The fact of the accident or the fact that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner is not even disputed by the appellant- Insurance company. 12. The argument about contributory negligence is premised on the contention recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and award wherein it is stated that the truck was driven in a rash and negligent manner without due regard for public safety, and the same “collided violently with the said scooty”. The argument seeks to draw sustenance from certain observations in paragraph 12 of Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), which read as under: - “12. Adverting to the next contention of the claimants, no doubt the High Court has not dealt with the point in issue. However, we have noticed the reasoning and finding of MACT recorded under Issue 2. It is the evidence of Rajesh Kumar Gupta PW 2 who was travelling in the Maruti car along with the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar on the day of the accident that he also suffered some injuries in the said accident. He stated that while coming from Digboi, the Maruti car being driven by the deceased met with an accident at a place near Kharjan Pol. Before the accident, Raj Kumar Dugar noticed a passenger bus coming from the opposite direction and the movement of the bus was not normal as it was coming in a zigzag manner. The Maruti car being driven by the deceased Raj Kumar Dugar and the offending bus had a head-on collision. MACT has not accepted the evidence of PW 2 to prove that the driver of the offending bus was driving the vehicle at abnormal speed. If the bus 2026:JHHC:1237 -5- was being driven by the driver abnormally in a zigzag manner, as PW 2 wanted the Court to believe, it was but natural, as a prudent man, for the deceased to have taken due care and precaution to avoid head-on collision when he had already seen the bus coming from the opposite direction from a long distance. It was head-on collision in which both the vehicles were damaged and, unfortunately, Raj Kumar Dugar died on the spot. MACT, in our view, has rightly observed that had the knocking been on one side of the car, the negligence or rashness could have been wholly fastened or attributable to the driver of the bus, but when the vehicles had a head-on collision, the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible to have contributed equally to the accident. The finding on this issue is a finding of fact and we do not find any cogent and convincing reason to disagree with the well- reasoned order of MACT on this point. MACT has awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim application till the date of payment. It is a discretionary relief granted by MACT and, in our view, the discretion exercised by MACT cannot be said to be inadequate and inappropriate.” 13. The facts in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) offer no comparison to the facts in the present case. In the first place, there is no evidence whatsoever about contributory negligence. Secondly, even if it is assumed that the contention recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 2 of the impugned judgment and award, by itself, constitutes evidence, still, all that it says is that it was a truck that was being driven in a rash and negligence manner without due regard to the public safety and that the same collided violently with the said scooty. There is no reference to any head-on collision. There is no reference to a truck being driven in a zigzag manner, which was visible from a long distance to the deceased, so as to give the deceased an opportunity to move away from the deadly path. 2026:JHHC:1237 -6- The very same paragraph 2 records that the scooty was driven at a normal speed while keeping to the left side of the road. Therefore, by trying to fit this case into certain observations in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra), even though the facts in Bijoy Kumar Dugar (supra) were entirely different, is not a ground to uphold the plea of contributory negligence in this case. 14. So far as the issue of non-deduction of the income tax is concerned, firstly, even after such deduction, the reduction, if any, to the compensation amount would be hardly significant. The Tribunal has taken the deceased's annual income to be Rs. 4.98 lakhs. Upon deduction, the yearly income would come to Rs. 4.86 lakhs. That apart, if we go by the discussion in paragraphs 31 and 32, it appears that the income after payment of tax has been considered. The income, in fact, is based upon the Income Tax Returns, which were produced during evidence. Therefore, on this ground, no variation is called for in the compensation amount that has been determined. 15. The third argument, that the deceased was involved in business and that only the impact of the demise on the business, which was otherwise continuing, must be considered, is misconceived, at least in the facts of the present case. There is no evidence whatsoever that the business survived the demise of Shyam Chandra Dash, or that it was continued by the widow and minor children. This case was also not put up before the Tribunal. Therefore, by simply relying upon certain observations in Rani Gupta and others (supra), no deduction can be claimed from the amount already determined by the Tribunal. 2026:JHHC:1237 -7- 16. The facts in Rani Gupta and others (supra) were entirely different. There was evidence of the business’s remaining assets. Here, the deceased was a wholesale merchant dealing in products such as tamarind (imli), flaxseed (teesi), and laha. Obviously, it cannot be contended that these were some substantial assets of a non-perishable nature. Therefore, based on this contention, there is no question of deducting the compensation amount determined. 17. As regards the interest of 7.5%, Mrs. Swati Shalini, learned counsel for the appellant, did refer to certain decisions where interest at the rate of only 6% per annum was awarded. However, the Tribunal in this case has referred to at least two judgments in paragraph 37 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court awarded interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Tribunal has exercised its discretion, as such exercise is not completely beyond the mark or unreasonable. In a matter of this nature, no case is made out to interfere with the exercise of such discretion and award of interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum. 18. Ultimately, the evidence on record shows that the bread earner of the family died in a road accident under gruesome circumstances, and left behind a widow and two minor children. Considering all these factors cumulatively, no case is made out to interfere with the interest of 7.5% per annum awarded by the Tribunal. 19. Regarding the argument that the truck driver possessed no valid licence, the record does not indicate that such a plea was specifically raised. In paragraph 6, there is a reference to the Driver of the TATA truck having a valid driving licence for LMV and TR, and other documents are 2026:JHHC:1237 -8- also referenced. However, this is not sufficient to infer a breach of the insurance policy terms. 20. In any event, if such a plea had been specifically raised and pressed, it is possible the matter could have been explained by the insured or the Driver. Because such a plea is not clearly reflected in the impugned judgment and award, it would not be appropriate to allow the insurance company to raise such a plea before this Court and seek its exoneration. In any event, such a plea, even if made good, would have made no difference to the entitlement of the claimants. 21. The impugned award, however, contains an error that is apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as compensation for loss of parental consortium has not been awarded to the minor children. This is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Co. v. Nanu Ram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 and in the case of Harpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Yadav & Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1723. It is a duty of this Court to determine and award just compensation irrespective of whether the same is prayed for. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by an amount of Rs. 96,800/-, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its payment. 22. Therefore, upon cumulative consideration of all the above facts and circumstances, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, subject to modification of the compensation amount. 2026:JHHC:1237 -9- 23. The record shows that 50% of the compensation amount, together with interest, was already deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the claimants, i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, are allowed to withdraw the same by furnishing their bank details and identity documents to the Tribunal. Upon due satisfaction, the Tribunal will transfer the compensation amount to the claimants' bank account. Under no circumstances should any cash withdrawals be permitted. 24. This entire exercise must be completed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within four weeks from today. 25. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount together with interest before the Tribunal at Jamshedpur within six weeks from today. 26. Upon deposit, the Tribunal must transfer even this amount to the claimant’s account immediately, subject to the following directions made for the benefit of the minor claimant. 27. One of the claimants, i.e. Harihar Dash, who was only 6 years old at the time of the accident, today, the claimant is aged about 8 to 9 years old; therefore, an amount of at least Rs. 10 lakhs must be retained by his mother, Lovely Dash, in a Fixed Deposit with the Nationalised Bank. This amount can be released to Harihar Dash upon his attaining majority. However, if there is an emergency situation, and this amount becomes necessary, Lovely Dash is allowed to apply to the Tribunal for the release of this amount. Upon releasing this amount, the Tribunal should ensure that Rs. 10 lakhs are maintained in a Fixed Deposit account in the names of Harihar Dash and Lovely Dash until Harihar Dash attains majority. 2026:JHHC:1237 -10- 28. The appellant-Insurance Company must file a compliance report in this Court after giving an advance copy to the learned counsel for the claimants, latest by the 26th of March 2026. 29. If no such compliance report is filed, the Registry is directed to place the matter for directions. 30. The appeal and Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (M.S. Sonak, C.J.) 15.01.2026 NAFR APK/VK Uploaded on 20.01.2026