The High Court
Case Details
2025:JHHC:34554 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M. A. No. 191 of 2020 Chairman-cum-Managing Director Central Coalfields Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having office at Darbhanga House, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand and also through its Project Officer Sri Jageshwar Narayan Gupta, S/o Sri Sukhan Nayak, residing at Qtr. No. D101, JOCP Officer Colony, P.O.-Kedla P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand .... …. Appellant Versus 1. Rukmini Devi, D/o Late Ramanand Patel 2. Nagina Patel @ Nagina Devi, D/o Late Ramanand Patel 3. Jai Shankar Patel, S/o Late Ramanand Patel 4. Archna Patel @ Archana Kumari, D/o Late Ramanand Patel 5. Meena Patel @ Meena Kumari, D/o Late Ramanand Patel, All permanent resident of Village-Khalia, P.O.-Nehiya, P.S.-Cholapur, Dist.-Varanasi, U.P. and presently residing at Jharkhand Colliery No. 15 Project, P.O. & P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand 6. Anil Kumar, S/o Late Nirmal Mahto, R/o Village-Laiya Basti, P.O.-Laiyo, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh 7. Project Officer, Jharkhand Open Cast Project, Kedla, P.O. & P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand .... .... Respondents With C.O. No. 06 of 2023 1. Nagina Patel @ Nagina Devi, D/o Late Ramanand Patel 2. Jai Shankar Patel, S/o Late Ramanand Patel 3. Archna Patel @ Archana Kumari, D/o Late Ramanand Patel 4. Meena Patel @ Meena Kumari, D/o Late Ramanand Patel, 5. Rukmini Devi, D/o Late Ramanand Patel, All resident of Village-Khalia, P.O.-Nehiya, P.S.-Cholapur, Dist.- Varanasi, U.P. and presently residing at Jharkhand Colliery No. 15 Project, P.O. & P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand .... .... Cross Objectors Versus 1. Anil Kumar, S/o Late Nirmal Mahto, R/o Village-Laiyo Basti, P.O.-Laiyo, P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh 2. Project Officer, Jharkhand Open Cast Project, Kedla, Village, P.O. & P.S.-Mandu, Dist.-Ramgarh, Jharkhand 3. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, CCL, Darbhanga House, Kutchery Road, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.-Gonda, Dist.-Ranchi .... .... Respondents -----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY ----- For the Appellant-CCL : Mr. Amit Kr. Das, Advocate Mrs. Swati Shalini, Advocate For the Cross Objectors : Mr. P.C. Sinha, Advocate ----- 2025:JHHC:34554 Oral Order 11 / Dated : 19.11.2025 1. Appellant company is in appeal against the liability being fixed on it to pay compensation under Section 166 of the M.V Act for the death of its employee in a motor vehicle accident, whereas cross-objection is for enhancement of compensation amount. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute that Indrawati Devi died in a motor vehicle accident involving Bus bearing Registration No. JH02D- 0354 leaving behind her legal heirs who are the claimants in the present case. 3. The registered owner of the said bus was the appellant Company and the vehicle was not insured. Consequently, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation against the appellant Company under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for a sum of Rs.50,62,075 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant in M. A. No. 191 of 2020 that it will amount to double jeopardy for the appellant-Company, to saddle it with liability to pay compensation, when compassionate appointment to claimant no. 3- Jai Shankar Patel who is the son of the deceased has been given. 5. Reliance in this regard is placed in (2008) 11 SCC 366 (Bhakra Beas Management Board Vs. Kanta Aggarwal (Smt) and Ors.) wherein it has been held that the benefits which the claimant receives on account of the death or injury have to be duly considered while fixing the compensation. The claimant in that case among other things was given compassionate appointment immediately after the accident. These factors were not considered by the Tribunal and consequently, the order was set aside and instead a lump sum fixed compensation of Rs. 5 Lakh was allowed. Further, it is argued that in (2017) 13 SCC 547 (National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rekhaben & Ors.), it has been held that in cases where the vehicle is insured and the employer has granted compassionate appointment, in that event Insurance Company cannot escape liability from paying compensation. This authority is distinguishable from the earlier authority, as here the vehicle is not 2 2025:JHHC:34554 insured, therefore, the compensation is to be paid by the appellant Company. 6. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellant has been repelled by learned counsel for the claimants by relying on the ratio laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 13668-13669 of 2024 (Balwinder Kaur Vs. Punjab State through its Secretary & Anr.) wherein it has been held that offering of compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased cannot be a ground to dislodge a claim for death under the Motor Vehicle Act. In nutshell it has been held that both are different reliefs and availability of one cannot be a ground for denial of another. This Court also in Misc. Appeal No. 245 of 2022 has taken the view that compassionate appointment after death cannot be a ground to denial of compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company. 7. In reply, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that in the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Balwinder Kaur (supra), the power has been exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and in the cases also, the payment of compensation has not been made on multiplier basis, rather the payment has been made as a lumpsum of Rs. 5 Lakh. 8. The question that falls for consideration is where the appellant company which is the owner of the offending vehicle, and the vehicle is not insured, can escape liability to pay compensation for the reason that compassionate appointment has already been given with other benefits to one of the claimants? 9. Principle of law has been laid down in Balwinder Kaur case (supra) that offering of compassionate appointment to a family member of the deceased cannot be a ground to dislodge a claim for death under motor vehicle accident. In Rekhaben case (supra) as the vehicle was insured, therefore the Insurance Company was not permitted to escape liability from paying compensation, on the ground that the compassionate appointment had been allowed. In Kanta Aggarwal case (supra), the Apex Court held that the benefits which the claimants received on account of death cannot be lost sight of. In this case compassionate 3 2025:JHHC:34554 appointment was allowed, therefore only a fixed lump sum amount was allowed. 10. On a combined reading of all these authorities, what follows is that although compassionate appointment cannot be a ground to reject a claim under M.V. Act, but particularly when the compensation is not to be paid by the Insurance Company, but by the employer company, the factum of compassionate appointment being granted cannot be altogether ignored. It is significant to note that in the cases relied upon by the claimants, only lump-sum compensation has been allowed. 11. Under the above stated position of law, since compassionate appointment has been given, therefore there cannot be a justification for allowing compensation for loss of earning under the heading of future prospect, which accordingly stands deducted from the final compensation amount. 12. On deduction of this amount, the final compensation will work out as under : Annual Income of the deceased after Rs. 5,26,174/- deduction of tax 1/4th as personal and living expense Rs. 1,31,543/- Annual Income after deduction – ¼ Rs. 394,630/- as personal and living expense Taking 11 as multiplier as the age of Rs. 43,40,930/- the deceased at the time of accident was 54 years Conventional Head Rs. 70,000/- Total Rs. 44,10,930/- 13. Cross-objection has been preferred for enhancement on the following grounds: a. Deceased was 53 years of age at the time of accident, whereas the Tribunal has taken the age to be 54 years. b. Claim of interest has been made for 9% per annum in place of 6% per annum. c. Monthly income of the deceased should have been taken to be Rs 50,000/- in place of Rs 46,405/-. 4 2025:JHHC:34554 14. This Court is of the view that applicable rate of interest will be 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application in view of the ratio laid down in Dharampal and others Versus U.P. State Road Transport Corporation {(2008) 12 SCC 208}. 15. Enhancement under the other heads is not tenable, as the compassionate appointment has already been granted to claimant no.3 who is the son of the deceased. M. A. No. 191 of 2020 and C.O. No. 06 of 2023 accordingly, stand
Decision
disposed of. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. Statutory amount deposited by the Appellant Company to be remitted to the trial Court for disbursement to the claimants against the final compensation amount. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) AKT/Satendra Uploaded 24.11.2025 5