ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadru Diversion Road, Near Yuvraj Palace and Gold v. 1. Deepshkha 2. Deep Jyoti 3. Raj Laxmi 4. Aradhya, All are unmarried, D/o
Case Details
2025:JHHC:37125 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 318 of 2025 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadru Diversion Road, Near Yuvraj Palace and Gold Gym, Dist.-Ranchi, through its Manager Legal, Amit Jaiswal, S/o Shri M. Bhagat, having its Branch at Kadru Bye Pass Road, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi .... Appellant …. Versus 1. Deepshkha 2. Deep Jyoti 3. Raj Laxmi 4. Aradhya, All are unmarried, D/o Late Dashrath Singh, All R/o Village- Ganeshpur, P.O.-Balumath, P.S.-Balumath, Dist.-Latehar, earlier address W 86/11, Indrapuri, Bodhnagar Block-F, South West Delhi, at present Friends Colony, P.O.-Kamre, P.S.-Kamre, Dist.-Ranchi, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are minor and their natural guardian mother and father are no more, hence they are represented through their own elder sister namely, Deep Jyoti, D/o Late Dashrath Singh 5. Mukesh Verma, S/o Shiv Nath Prasad Soni, R/o Teli Tola, Near Devi Mandap, Village-Balumath, P.O. & P.S.-Balumath, Dist.-Latehar .... .... Respondents With M. A. No. 230 of 2025
Legal Reasoning
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Kadru Diversion Road, Near Yuvraj Palace and Gold Gym, Dist.-Ranchi, through its Manager Legal, Amit Jaiswal, S/o Shri M. Bhagat, having its Branch at Kadru Bye Pass Road, P.O.-Doranda, P.S.-Doranda, Dist.-Ranchi .... Appellant …. Versus 1. Deepshkha 2. Deep Jyoti 3. Raj Laxmi 4. Aradhya, All are unmarried, D/o Late Dashrath Singh, All R/o Village- Ganeshpur, P.O.-Balumath, P.S.-Balumath, Dist.-Latehar, earlier address W 86/11, Indrapuri, Bodhnagar Block-F, South West Delhi, at present Friends Colony, P.O.-Kamre, P.S.-Kamre, Dist.-Ranchi, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are minor and their natural guardian mother and father are no more, hence they are represented through their own elder sister namely, Deep Jyoti, D/o Late Dashrath Singh 5. Mukesh Verma, S/o Shiv Nath Prasad Soni, R/o Teli Tola, Near Devi Mandap, Village-Balumath, P.O. & P.S.-Balumath, Dist.-Latehar ----- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellant-Insurance Co. : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. Shashank Kumar, Advocate Mr. Harsh Chandra, Advocate ----- 2025:JHHC:37125 Oral Order 03 / Dated : 10.12.2025 I.A. No. 6568/2025 in M.A. No. 318/2025 and I.A. No. 6573/2025 in M.A. No. 230/2025 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company in these interlocutory applications which have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 06 days in filing of M.A. No. 318 of 2025 and 10 days in filing of M.A. No. 230 of 2015 respectively. 2. Heard both sides. Considering the grounds taken in these interlocutory applications, the delay is condoned and the limitation applications are allowed.
Decision
I.A. Nos. 6568 of 2025 and 6573 of 2025 stand disposed of. M.A. No. 318 of 2025 and M.A. No. 230 of 2025 3. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award of compensation in which liability has been fixed on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. 4. In both these appeals, common question of facts and law has been raised and therefore, they are heard together and will be disposed of by the common order. 5. Two separate claim cases being Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 449/2022 and 450/2022 were preferred by the legal heirs and descendants of the deceased namely Dashrath @ Dashrath Singh and Shakuntala @ Shakuntala Devi who died in motor vehicle accident involving a truck bearing Registration No. JH-19C-3118. 6. The Tribunal heard both the claim cases together and disposed of by common judgment and separate award of compensation. 7. The appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company on the following grounds. Firstly, it is contended that in respect of income of deceased Dashrath Singh, learned Tribunal has taken exorbitant amount of Rs.18,499/-. Secondly, as per the admitted document, date of birth of the deceased Dashrath Singh is 01.01.1972 and the date of accident is 05.08.2022, meaning thereby, deceased Dashrath Singh aged 50 years 2 2025:JHHC:37125 and 7 months and thus, by application of table, he is entitled for multiplier of 11 instead of 13. Thirdly, if deceased Dashrath Singh will be considered more than 50 years, then the future prospect for the fixed income will not be 25% which is allowed, it will be 10%. 8. It is further contended that the date of birth of the deceased Shakuntala Devi as per the Pan Card, produced on her behalf (Ext.14) is 11.08.1977 and on the date of accident, she was 45 years 11 months and, therefore, as per Chart, applicable multiplier will be 13 and not 14 as taken by the Tribunal. 9. Learned counsel for the claimants has defended the impugned order. 10. Having considered the submissions advanced, this Court is of the view that the plea, raised at the bar on behalf of the Insurance Company, is not sustainable for the following reasons: Firstly, the Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased Dashrath Singh who was a driver in NCT Delhi by taking the minimum wages notification as applicable there which came to approximately Rs.18,499/- and the assessment of income has been done on its basis. Therefore, there is no infirmity so far taking the income of the deceased Dashrath Singh is concerned. 11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has come up with a novel argument which appears to be attractive on the surface but is devoid of merit. It is urged by the learned counsel that since deceased Dashrath Singh was aged 50 years 7 months and similarly, deceased Shakuntala Devi at the time of accident was aged 45 years and 11 months, therefore, both of them should be assumed to have attained 51 years and 46 years respectively and according to the multiplier and future prospect is to be assessed. 12. What in effect is being urged is that before a person completes a particular age, he should be assumed to have completed it. If this argument is accepted, it will lead to anomalous results in all walks of life including compensation cases. A person who has not completed 51 years cannot be taken to be 51 years simply because he has crossed the 50 years and six months. This argument is also, therefore, rejected. I do not find any merit in both these appeals. Both the appeals are accordingly, dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, 3 2025:JHHC:37125 stands disposed of. Statutory amount deposited by the Appellant- Insurance Company to be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants against the final compensation amount (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 11.12.2025 4