Jharkhand High Court
Rajo Devi vs Sanjay Kumar Jain on 20 February, 2026
(2026: JHHC: 5179)
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 263 of 2014
1. Rajo Devi, wife of Late Prakash Yadav.
2. Arti Kumari, daughter of Late Prakash Yadav of Village- Ralo, P.O.
and P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh.
.... Appellants
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar Jain, son of Laxmi Chand Jain, Khajuraho Transport
Company, Satna, P.O.,P.S. & District- Satna, M.P. (Owner of Truck
No. MP-19A-9609).
2. Makbul Alam, son of S. Alam, D.M.T. and Engg. School, P.O.,P.S. and
District- Dhanbad (Driver of Truck No. MP-19A-9609).
3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Shanti Bawan Road, Makatpur,
P.O. & P.S.- Makatpur, District- Giridih, Jharkhand through the Branch
Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Adarsh Bazar, Malviya Marg,
Hazaribagh, P.O.- Hazaribagh, P.S.- Sadar, District- Hazaribagh.
4. Rahul Kumar Yadav, son of Late Prakash Yadav.
5. Anup Kumar Yadav, son of Late Prakash Yadav, resident of Village-
Ralo, P.O. & P.S.- Barhi, District- Hazaribagh.
.... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
——
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Diwakar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Mayank Maridul, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
—–
Order No.12 Dated 20.02.2026
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is a claimants’ appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has directed the 3 rd
respondent-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 2,56,800/- to
the claimants on account of death of Prakash Yadav, the husband and the
father of the claimants.
4. There is no dispute about Prakash meeting with the fatal accident on
03.09.2003 on account of involvement of the insured vehicle. Prakash’s
widow (C.W.4) and at least three other witnesses have deposed to Prakash
being a cultivator / agriculturist earning Rs.2500/- to Rs. 3000/- per month.
There was no reason to reject this evidence only because no documentary
proof was produced. There was no serious cross-examination on this aspect
and even otherwise, determining the income of Rs. 2500/-, as claimed by
the claimants, is reasonable.
5. The Tribunal has taken Prakash’s income, based upon the prevalent
minimum wages. Here again, the Tribunal has held that Prakash must have
been working for only 20 days in a month and determined the monthly
income at Rs. 1800/-. Such estimate is excessively conservative. Learned
counsel for the claimants pointed out that since Prakash was a cultivator
and agriculturist, even the minimum wages rate should have been
multiplied by 26 days.
6. On due consideration of the evidence on record, Prakash’s monthly income
will have to be determined at Rs. 2,500/- per month. The tribunal forgot to
make any addition towards future prospects. Since Prakash was not a
salaried person, future prospects will have to be taken at 40% and his
yearly income will have to be taken at Rs. 42,000/-.
7. The Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd towards Prakash’s personal expenses.
However, since there were four dependents, this deduction would be only
1/4th and accordingly, his contribution towards the dependents will have to
be taken at Rs. 31,500/-.
8. The Tribunal applied the multiplier of 17, even though Prakash was 32
years old at the time of the accident. Learned counsel for the Insurance
Company is justified in contending that, in terms of the law laid down in
Sarla Verma (Smt) & Ors. Vs. In Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr1,
1
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2
the correct multiplier is 16, not 17. This means that compensation towards
dependency would come to Rs. 5,04,000/-.
9. In addition, the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts towards loss of love
and affection, loss of estate and funeral expenses. In terms of the law laid
down in Sarla Verma (supra), National Insurance Company Limited Vs.
Pranay Sethi & Ors., Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram
@ Chuhru Ram and others: this compensation would amount to Rs.
40,000/- per dependent (towards consortium), Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of
estate, and Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, an addition of Rs.
1,90,000/- would be due.
10. This means that total compensation payable to the claimants would come
to Rs. 6,94,000/-, as against the award of only Rs. 2,56,800/-. The fact that
the claimants had prayed for compensation of only Rs. 3,00,000/- is quite
irrelevant because it is the duty of the Tribunal and this Court to determine
“just compensation”. The position that the compensation need not be
restricted to the claim made is well settled in the case of V. Pathmavathi
and Others Versus Bharthi Axa General Insurance Co. Ltd. and
Another2,.
11. The Tribunal has not awarded any interest from the date of the claim
petition. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum has been awarded only if the
Insurance Company fails to pay the awarded amount within a month from
the date of award. Accordingly, it is directed that the Insurance Company
shall pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the claim
petition until actual payment.
2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 158
3
12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company states that the compensation
in terms of the impugned award is already paid. Accordingly, the Insurance
Company is directed to pay the difference based on the enhanced
compensation amount, now determined, within two months to the
appellants. Such an amount should be directly deposited in the Bank
accounts of the appellants and 4th and 5th respondents, i.e. Rahul Kumar
Yadav and Anup Kumar Yadav. Learned counsel for the appellants must
inform the Insurance Company of the Bank details, along with the proof
of identity, so that the Insurance Company can deposit the amounts directly
into their Bank accounts.
13. Insofar as the apportionment is concerned, 60% of the compensation
should be given to Prakash’s widow, Rajo Devi, and the balance 40%
amount should be apportioned equally between the daughter, Arti Kumar
and the two sons, Rahul Kumar Yadav and Anup Kumar Yadav.
14. The enhanced compensation amount should be paid within two months;
failing which, it shall carry interest at 9%. The difference between 6% and
9% will have to be borne by the officials of the Insurance Company
because of their delay; the public exchequer cannot be made to suffer. If
necessary, this additional amount will have to be deducted from the salary
of the official responsible for the delay.
15. Usually, in such matters, the Insurance Companies are very reluctant to
assign responsibility to any official. Therefore, it is directed that if no
responsibility can be placed on any official, then the Divisional Manager
of the New India Assurance Company Limited (R-3) will be responsible
and have to make payments from his personal salary.
4
16. The order made for ‘pay and recover’ is not disturbed, since that is not
even challenged before this Court. The Insurance Company, therefore, will
be at liberty to take such steps as it may be advised in this regard.
17. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
18. All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
February 20, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr
N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 24.02.2026
5
