As per case facts, Claimant Jeewana Devi filed a claim under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation for her son's death in a road accident caused by rash ...
1 2026:HHC:7671
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO (MVA) Nos. 254 & 444 of 2017
Reserved on : 25
th
February, 2026
Decided on : 18
th
March, 2026
1. FAO (MVA) No.254 of 2017
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. .......Appellant
Versus
Jeewana Devi and Others ...Respondents
2. FAO (MVA) No.444 of 2017
Jeewana Devi & Others .......Appellants
Versus
Vikas Guleria and Others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
1
Yes.
1. FAO No. 254 of 2017
For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Reham Tulla, Advocate vice
Mr. Devender K. Sharma,
Advocate for respondents No.2
and 3.
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
2 2026:HHC:7671
2. FAO No. 444 of 2017
For the appellant: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate
For the respondents: Mr. Reham Tulla, Advocate vice
Mr. Devender K. Sharma,
Advocate, for respondents No.1
and 2.
Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Virender Singh, Judge
The above titled appeals are being disposed of, by
a common judgment, as both these appeals have arisen out of
the award dated 19.10.2016, passed by learned Motor
Accidents Claims TribunalIII, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in Claim Petition
No.34/2012, titled as Jeewana Devi versus Vikas Guleria &
Others.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner,
in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT.
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeals,
before this Court, may be summed up, as under:
3.1. Claimant Jeewana Devi, unfortunate mother of
Shri Sandeep Chauhan, has filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the M.V. Act’), seeking compensation on account of death
3 2026:HHC:7671
of her son Sandeep Chauhan, in road side accident involving
vehicle No.HP654420, (hereinafter referred to as the
‘offending vehicle’), being owned by respondent No.1, driven
by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3.
3.2. The claimant has sought the relief on the ground
that on 18.10.2011, her son Sandeep Chauhan, along with
Matul Chauhan, was coming back to home on motorcycle
No.HP33B1697, and at about 8.30 p.m., when, they reached
at a place RanikiBain, meanwhile, the offending vehicle,
being driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent
manner, reached there and hit the motorcycle being driven by
the son of the claimant.
3.3. Consequently, the rider, as well as, the pillion
rider sustained injuries and both, the motorcyclist and the
pillion rider, died on the spot. Their dead bodies were taken
to hospital for postmortem examination.
3.4. The information regarding the incident was given
to the police of Police Station Balh, where FIR No.254/11,
dated 18.10.2011, under Sections 279, 201 and 304A of the
IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act, was registered.
3.5. According to the claimant, her son, at the time of
his death, was about 25 years of age and was working as
4 2026:HHC:7671
Assistant Engineer in Rural Development and Panchayati Raj
Department and was earning Rs.18,000/ per month. As per
the claimant, the accident has solely been occurred on
account of rash and negligent driving attributed to
respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle.
4. On the basis of the above facts, the compensation
of Rs.50,00,000/ (fifty lacs), along with 18% interest has
been sought from the respondents.
5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been
contested by the respondents.
6. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint
reply, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections
that the claim petition is not maintainable, as no accident
had taken place with the bus owned by respondent No.1 and
driven by respondent No.2. They have also termed the FIR to
be registered on the basis of assumption. They had also
alleged that the accident had taken place due to the fault of
rider of motorcycle No.HP33B1697 and according to them,
owner, as well as, insurer of the motorcycle has not been
impleaded as party, in the present case.
5 2026:HHC:7671
7. On merits, the factum of accident has been denied
and the amount of compensation, as claimed in the petition,
is also stated to be exaggerated.
8. Insurance Company has filed the separate reply by
taking the preliminary objections that the petition is not
maintainable against the Insurance Company, as the driver of
the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of accident.
8.1. According to the Insurance Company, as per
Section 134 (C) of the M.V. Act, owner and driver of the
offending vehicle have not supplied requisite documents to
the Insurance Company. As per the Insurance Company, the
accident in question, had taken place due to the contributory
negligence of rider of Motorcycle No.HP33B1697. Rest of the
contents have mainly been denied for want of knowledge.
9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the petition.
10. Claimant has filed the rejoinder to the replies filed
by the respondents, by denying the preliminary objections, as
well as, the factual position, by virtue of which, the claim
petition has been contested and controverted by the
respondents.
6 2026:HHC:7671
11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed, by the learned MACT, vide order dated
31.12.2014:
1. Whether deceased Sandeep Chauhan died in an
accident with vehicle bearing No.HP654420,
which was being driven in a rash and negligent
manner by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether
the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to
what amount and from whom, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of
necessary parties, as alleged ? OPR 1 and 2.
4. Whether the vehicle of respondent No.1 is
insured with respondent No.3, as alleged ?
OPR 1 & 2
5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied
in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance
Policy, as alleged? OPR2.
6. Relief.
12. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to
adduce evidence.
13. After the closure of evidence and after hearing
learned counsel for the parties, the learned MACT has
decided the petition, vide award impugned herein, by giving
the following relief:
“As a sequel to my findings on all issues above,
the instant claim petition is allowed with cost
which is assessed at Rs.5,000/. The petitioner
is awarded total compensation of Rs.14,60,600/
7 2026:HHC:7671
with interest @7.5% per annum, from the date of
filing of this petition till payment to be paid by the
respondent No.1 and 2. However, the respondent
No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle shall
indemnify this award. This award is inclusive of
amount, if any, awarded under Section 140 of the
Act. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit
the award amount within 45 days.”
14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, claimant,
as well as, the Insurance Company have preferred the present
appeals, before this Court.
15. The Insurance Company, aggrieved form the said
award, has filed FAO No. 254 of 2017, mainly, on the ground
that in the FIR, particulars of the offending vehicle have not
been mentioned and after a period of 8 days, the offending
vehicle was impounded and name of the driver had been
added in the FIR.
16. The Insurance Company has also assailed the
award, on the ground that the person, who had lodged the
FIR was not present on the spot. The award has also been
assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly
given 50% addition in the income of the deceased, whereas,
the claimant could not make out a case for grant of 50%
addition in the income of the deceased in the present case.
17. On the basis of the above facts, Shri Jagdish
Thakur, Advocate, has prayed that the appeal (FAO No.254 of
8 2026:HHC:7671
2017), may kindly be allowed, by dismissing the claim
petition.
18. In this case, claimant Jeewana has also filed
appeal on the ground that the adequate compensation has
not been awarded and wrong multiplier has been applied.
19. In addition to this, enhancement has also been
sought on the ground that the learned MACT has failed to
take into consideration the actual income of the deceased. As
per the claimant/appellant, more amount has been deducted
towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive.
In addition to this, learned MACT has wrongly deducted the
income tax @ 20%, which is stated to be against the legal
provisions.
20. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Vikrant
Chandel, Advocate has prayed that the appeal (FAO No.444 of
2017), may kindly be allowed, and amount of compensation
may kindly be enhanced accordingly.
21. The Insurance Company has assailed the award
mainly on the ground that the claimant could not prove the
involvement of the offending vehicle, in the accident in
question, what to talk about the rashness and negligence of
the driver of the offending vehicle.
9 2026:HHC:7671
22. Perusal of the record shows that the copy of FIR
No.254 of 2011, has been proved by PW2 HC Ashwani No.62,
as Ex.PW2/A. Perusal of the same shows that the said FIR
has been registered at the instance of one Rajinder Pal
Dhiman, who admittedly has stated in the FIR that some
unknown vehicle has hit the motorcycle bearing HP33B1697.
23. However, the factum of accident stood proved from
the testimony of PW3 Balak Ram, who has categorically
deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle. Admittedly, the FIR in question was not lodged by
making a statement on oath, as such, nonmentioning of the
description/registration number of the offending vehicle is not
fatal, as, the proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary in
nature, where, the matter has to be decided, on the
touchstone of preponderance of probability.
24. The statement on oath made by PW3, in the
absence of any ulterior motive, which even has not been
suggested to him, cannot be ignored and considering the
evidence of PW3, coupled with the copy of FIR, as well as,
copy of postmortem report Ex.PW1/A, this Court is of the
view that the claimant has proved the factum of accident,
which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of
10 2026:HHC:7671
offending vehicle on the touchstone of preponderance of
probability.
25. Specific allegations have been levelled against
respondent No.2, Hans Raj, about the fact that he was driving
the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Except
denying the factum of accident in the reply, respondent No.2,
has not bothered to step into the witnessbox to depose, on
oath, about the fact that he was not driving the offending
vehicle at the relevant time. His non appearance in the
witnessbox, gives an occasion for this Court to draw an
adverse inference that the stand taken by respondent No.2, in
his reply is not correct. Moreover, the offending vehicle was
in the exclusive control of respondent No.2 and he has not
bothered even to make a complaint to police/higher
authorities about his wrong involvement in the FIR
No.254/2011, dated 18.10.2011, under Sections 279, 201
and 304A of the IPC and Section 187 of MV Act.
26. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected
and the same is accordingly rejected.
27. Since the claimant has also filed the appeal
against the award passed by the learned MACT and
11 2026:HHC:7671
Insurance Company has also assailed the award apart from
the other grounds that the learned MACT has wrongly awarded
50% addition on account of future prospects, as such, this
Court would now proceed further to decide the moot question
whether the compensation awarded to the claimant falls
within the definition of ‘just compensation’, or not.
28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance
Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2
SCC (Cri.) 987, has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are
beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court
should be to provide “just compensation” to the claimant.
The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced
as under:
“23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are
beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for
payment of compensation to the workmen
employed by the employers and/or by use of
motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the
insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent
disability. The amount of compensation is to be
determined in terms of the provisions of the
respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923
Act, the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial
authority, is bound to apply the principles and
the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of
determining the compensation, Section 168 of the
1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award
determining the amount of compensation which
appears to be just.
12 2026:HHC:7671
24. Both the Acts aim at providing for
expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In
these cases, the accidents took place by
reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes
are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the
third parties. The benefits thereof are available
only to the persons specified
under the Act besides under the Contract of
Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve
liberal construction. The legislative intent
contained therein is required to be interpreted
with a view to give effect thereto.”
(self emphasis supplied)
29. In order to ascertain the above object of the M.V.
Act, i.e., ‘just compensation’, the first and foremost question
is about the fact as to whether the learned MACT has rightly
determined the compensation on account of death of son of
the claimant.
30. As per the claim petition, son of the claimant, at
the time of accident and death, was about 25 years. In order
to prove this fact, matriculation certificate of Sandeep
Chauhan, has also been annexed with the claim petition as
Ex.PW6/B. As per the said certificate, the date of birth of
Sandeep Chauhan, was 06.05.1983 and the accident had
taken place on 18.10.2011.
31. Thus, at the time of accident the age of the son of
the claimant was 28 years, whereas, learned MACT has
determined the age of the son of the claimant as 25 years. To
13 2026:HHC:7671
that extent learned MACT has fallen into error. Thus, the age
of son of the claimant at the time of death was proved to be
28 years.
32. Now, the next question, which arises for
determination before this Court is about the earnings of the
son of the claimant during his life time.
33. As per the claim petition, he was working as
Assistant Engineer with Director, Rural Development and
Panchayati Raj, Dharampur Block, District Mandi, H.P. His
salary certificate has been proved as Ex.PW5/A and as per
this certificate, he was working on contract basis and his
salary was Rs.18,000/ per month.
34. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court
in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi
and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 50% amount is required to
be added in the income of the deceased towards his future
prospects, had he been alive, in order to award just
compensation, as the son of the claimant, during his life time
was working in public sector. Thus, by adding 50%, on
account of future prospects, in his salary, his monthly income
comes to Rs.27,000/ (Rs.18,000/ + Rs.9,000/). As such,
the annual income comes to Rs.3,24,000/ (Rs.27,000/ X
14 2026:HHC:7671
12). The income tax component is liable to be deducted from
the said income. Out of Rs.3,24,000/, the amount of total
taxable income comes to Rs.1,44,000/ (Rs.3,24,000/ minus
Rs.1,80,000/).
35. The son of the claimant died in the year 2011 and
at the relevant time, this income falls within the tax slab of
10%. Meaning thereby, Rs.14,400/ is liable to be deducted
as income tax, from the annual income of the deceased.
Thus, after deduction of the tax, the annual income of the son
of the claimant comes to Rs.3,09,600/ (Rs.3,24,000/ minus
Rs.14,400/).
36. Learned MACT has wrongly applied the multiplier,
at the age of the claimants, which is not sustainable, in view
of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case
supra, as, the multiplier should be applied on the basis of age
of the deceased, as held in para 59.7 of the said judgment.
37. The age of son of the claimant was held to be 28
years and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation and
Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, multiplier of
17, is applicable, in the present case.
15 2026:HHC:7671
38. Son of the claimant was bachelor, at the time of
death, as such, 50% amount, out of his annual income, is
liable to be deducted, towards personal expenses, had he
been alive. Thus, his contribution towards the family comes
to Rs.1,54,800/. As such, the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimants on account of loss of dependency,
comes to Rs.1,54,800/ x 17 = Rs.26,31,600/.
39. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu
Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the
claimant is also entitled for the consortium.
40. In addition, the claimant is also held entitled for
the following amount:
Loss of estate = `15,000/
Funeral expenses = `15,000/
Loss of consortium = `40,000/
41. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the aforesaid amount should
be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.
42. Thus, the amount, for which the claimant, is held
entitled, is assessed, as under:
1. Loss of contribution =`1,54,800/x17=`26,31,600/
2.Loss of estate= `19,500/ (`15,000/ + `4500/)
16 2026:HHC:7671
3.Funeral expenses= `19,500/ (`15,000/ + `4500/)
4.Loss of consortium= `52,000/ (`40,000/+`12,000/)
Total= Rs.26,31,600+19,500+19,500+
Rs.52,000=Rs.27,22,600/
43. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by
the learned MACT is liable to be enhanced.
44. Accordingly, FAO No.444 of 2017 is allowed and
the awarded amount is enhanced, in the above terms.
Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for the amount of
Rs.27,22,600/, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of
filing of petition till the realization of amount, from
respondents No.1 and 2. However, respondent No.3, being
insurer of the offending vehicle shall indemnify this award
and deposit the same within eight weeks from today. The
award is inclusive of the amount, if any, awarded under
Section 140 of the Act. The award passed by the learned
MACT is modified in the above terms. However, FAO No.254
of 2017, is dismissed.
45. Memo of costs be prepared.
46. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
March 18, 2026 (ps) Judge
Legal Notes
Add a Note....