Jagarnath Thakur Vs Riyajuddin

[2025:JHHC:17567]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 264 of 2024

Jagarnath Thakur, Son of late Sarju Thakur age about 64 years Resident of Loco Bazar Hatia Tand, (Mansuri Mohalla) Hariharpur P.O Gomoh & P.S Hariharpur, Dist- Dhanbad.

¶4

..... … Appellant Versus

¶5

Riyajuddin, Son of Saddik, R/o Niwana Nuh, P.O, P.S. & Dist-Nuh (Mewat) State Haryana. (Owner of Truck No HR-74A-6946)

¶6

The new India Assurance Company Ltd., Policy issuance office; -

¶7

At Sohna Micro Office, H.No. 104, Ward No 08 Sohna Palwal Road P.O. & P.S. Dist- Palwalstate Haryana.

¶8

Dhanbad Divisional Office;-

¶9

The new India Assurance Company Limited , at B.P. Agarwalla Building Ground floor Dhansar P.O & P.S Dhansar Dist - Dhanbad StateJharkhand. (Insurer of Truck No. HR-74A-6946).

¶10

with

¶11

Jagarnath Thakur, Son of late Sarju Thakur age about 64 years Resident of Loco Bazar Hatia Tand, (Mansuri Mohalla) Hariharpur P.O Gomoh & P.S Hariharpur, Dist- Dhanbad.

¶12

..... … Appellant Versus

¶13

Riyajuddin, Son of Saddik, R/o Niwana Nuh, P.O, P.S. & Dist-Nuh (Mewat) State Haryana. (Owner of Truck No HR-74A-6946)

¶14

The new India Assurance Company Ltd., Policy issuance office; -

¶15

-1-

¶16

[2025:JHHC:17567]

¶17

At Sohna Micro Office, H.No. 104, Ward No 08 Sohna Palwal Road P.O. & P.S. Dist- Palwalstate Haryana. Dhanbad Divisional Office;-

¶18

The new India Assurance Company Limited , at B.P. Agarwalla Building Ground floor Dhansar P.O & P.S Dhansar Dist - Dhanbad StateJharkhand. (Insurer of Truck No. HR-74A-6946).

¶19

..... … Respondents

¶20

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶21

-----For the Appellant : Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Advocate. For the Ins. Company : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate.

¶22

10/ 02.07.2025 In both these appeals separate awards have been passed, arising out of the same accident, in view of that both these appeals have been heard together with the consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. Gaurav Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company.

¶23

M.A. No. 264 of 2024 has been filed by the claimant, being aggrieved with the award dated 30.04.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 314 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad for enhancement of the award.

¶24

M.A. No. 296 of 2024 has also been filed by the claimant, being aggrieved with the award dated 30.04.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 315 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad for enhancement of the said award.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the

¶26

-2-

¶27

[2025:JHHC:17567]

¶28

appeals submits that the compensation cases were filed before the learned tribunal stating therein that on 11-11-2021 at about 6.00 P.M the deceased and her sister Laxmi Kumari along with Laxman Kumar Rawani were travelling on a Scooty No. JH-10-CC-9446. When they reached at Banka Pul, near NH-2 about 1 K.M west from Topchanchi Police Station, a truck No. HR-74A-6946 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against their Scooty resultantly all of them sustained severe injuries and died. He submits that it was stated that the deceased used to take private tuition and earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. The Truck No. HR-74A-6946 was insured with the insurance company at the relevant time. He further submits that in the second M.A., the deceased Kiran Kumari was aged about nine years only. He also submits that the learned tribunal has been pleased to allow both the claim cases and awarded as sum of Rs. 5,70,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim cases till its realization in each of the claim cases.

¶29

By way of referring the said awards, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in both the appeals submits that the learned tribunal has not added any amount so far as future prospect and conventional head are concerned and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & Ors., reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680. He further submits that so far as conventional head is concerned, in every three years, 10% is required to be added in the conventional head. Relying on this judgment, he submits that these two heads may kindly be added in both the appeals.

¶30

-3-

¶31

[2025:JHHC:17567]

¶32

Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has opposed the prayer and submits that the learned tribunal after considering the income and the funeral aspect has rightly passed the respective awards and there is no illegality, as such, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is not tenable.

¶33

The court has looked into the awards and finds that the learned tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 314 of 2021 has been pleased to allow a sum of Rs. 5,70,600/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim cases till its realization and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 315 of 2021, the learned tribunal has also awarded the same amount of Rs. 5,70,600/along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim cases till its realization. In both the awards, under the two heads, i.e. the future head and the conventional head, no amount has been awarded by the learned tribunal, in view of Pranay Sethi case (Supra) , the two heads are required to be there in the award, which is missing.

¶34

In view of the above, the award dated 30.04.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 314 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in M.A. No. 264 of 2024 and the award dated 30.04.2024, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 315 of 2021 by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in M.A. No. 296 of 2024 are modified to the extent that the claimant shall be entitled for compensation with respect to future prospect to the tune of 40% of the annual income that will be added and further in the

¶35

-4-

¶36

[2025:JHHC:17567]

¶37

conventional head, Rs. 70,000/- will be added in both the awards and further 10% will be added in the conventional head for every three years.

¶38

With the above observations, both these appeals are allowed and disposed of.

¶39

The awarded amount in terms of the modification allowed today in both the compensation cases shall be released in favour of the claimant by the learned tribunal within six weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

¶40

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company that so far as real awarded amount is concerned, those have already been deposited before the learned tribunal. The insurance company is directed to deposit the further enhanced amount, in light of the modified award in both the cases within three weeks from today.

¶41

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶42

Amitesh/-

¶43

-5-

Jagarnath Thakur v. Riyajuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagarnath Thakur v. Riyajuddin

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganesh Prasad Gupta Vs Manoj Kumar Gupta

Saiyad Shahrup Ali @ Syed Sharuf Ali Vs the State of Jharkhand

Anil Prasad Vs Brajesh Verma

Shankar Lal Gupta Vs Smt. Rajeshwari Devi

Khalil Ansari Vs Anupama Devi And Ors.

Jagarnath Thakur Vs Riyajuddin