As per case facts, claimant Kamaljeet, a pillion rider, sustained severe injuries including compound fractures on his right leg due to a rash and negligent driving incident involving another vehicle. ...
1 2026:HHC:9662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .
FAO No. 541 of 2017
Reserved on : 24.03.2026
Decided on : 31.03.2026
Kamaljeet ...Appellant
Versus
Parveen and others ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
1
For the appellant: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate,
vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate,
vice Mr. Atharv Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for
respondent No. 3.
Virender Singh, Judge.
ClaimantKamaljeet has filed the present appeal
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), with a prayer to
modify the enhance the award dated 01.04.2016, passed by
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:9662
learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in MAC Case No. 3/2
of 2014, titled as “Kamaljeet Versus Parveen and others”.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner,
as were, referred to, by the learned MACT.
3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal,
before this Court, may be summed up as under:
3.1. Claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of
the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver
and insurer of vehicle No. HP01H1444. The claimant has
filed the petition due to the fact that on 25.05.2013, he was
pillion rider on scooter No. HP22A5632, which was being
driven by Rakesh Kumar. They were on their way from
Hamirpur to Nadoun and when reached near DAV School
Salashi, at about 7:50 pm, then respondent No. 2 came there
while driving vehicle No. HP01H1444 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner and
hit the scooter driven by Rakesh Kumar. Consequently, the
claimant sustained multiple injuries, as well as, also suffered
3 2026:HHC:9662
compound fractures on his right leg. The information
regarding the accident was given to Police Station Sadar,
where case has been registered against respondent No. 2.
After the accident, the claimant was taken to hospital at
Hamirpur, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh,
where, he remained admit as indoor patient.
3.2 According to the claimant, he has suffered
disability in this accident. Since, the accident has taken
place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No.
2, as such, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by
awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. One crore, to the
claimant.
4. When put to notice, the claim petition has been
contested by the respondents.
4.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply by taking the
preliminary objection that the learned MACT has no
jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, as the accident had
taken place within the jurisdiction of MACT Hamirpur.
4.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition qua
the accident has not been disputed. Rest of the contents
4 2026:HHC:9662
have been denied. However, he has denied that respondent
No. 2 was rash and negligent while driving the offending
vehicle.
4.3 In his reply, respondent No. 2 has denied the fact
of accident. Rest of the contents have been denied for want of
knowledge.
4.4 Insurance companyrespondent No. 3, has filed
the separate reply by taking the preliminary objections that
the claim petition is not maintainable, vehicle was being
permitted to drive in violation to the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy, driver was not having a valid and
effective driving licence, the petition is bad for nonjoinder
and misjoinder of necessary parties, as driver, owner and
insurer of scooter bearing No. HP22A5632 have not been
impleaded.
4.5 On merits, contents of the claim petition have
been denied, mainly, for want of knowledge.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal, had framed the following issues, vide order dated
24.02.2015:
5 2026:HHC:9662
1.Whether on 25.05.2013 at about 7:50 pm near DAV
School Salashi, petitioner sustained injuries on
account of rash and negligent driving of respondent
No. 2, driver of car No. HP01H1444? OPP
2.If issue No. 1 above is proved in affirmative, whether
the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP
3.Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR3
4.Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder of
necessary parties? OPR3
5.Whether the offending vehicle was being driven
without any valid documents? OPR3
6.Whether respondent No. 2 was not having valid and
effective driving licence? OPR3
7.Relief.
6. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to
lead evidence.
7. After the closure of the evidence, learned Tribunal
has partly allowed the petition, by awarding a sum of Rs.
13,23,000/, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of filing of the claim petition, till payment, to
the claimant by fastening the liability upon respondent No. 3,
being insurer of vehicle No. HP01H1444.
8. Aggrieved from the amount of compensation,
awarded to the claimant, he has preferred the present appeal
6 2026:HHC:9662
before this Court, seeking the enhancement of amount of
compensation. The award has been sought to be enhanced
mainly on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly
concluded that the petitioner was not earning the amount of
Rs. 30,000/ per month and his income has been wrongly
taken as Rs. 6,000/ per month, whereas, according to the
claimant, he has proved the fact on the record that he was
skilled worker and working as a painter and earning Rs.
13,000/ per month. The learned MACT had rightly
concluded that the claimant had suffered 40% physical
disability, but on account of said disability, the functioning
disability should have been 100%, in the present case.
9. On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Veena
Sharma, Advocate appearing for the claimant has prayed that
the award amount may kindly be enhanced, on the basis of
submissions made above.
10. The prayer, so made, by learned Counsel
appearing for the appellant/claimant has been opposed by
Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for
respondent No. 1, as well as, Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate,
7 2026:HHC:9662
vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 and
Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr.
Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3, on the
ground that the evidence so adduced has rightly been
considered by learned MACT and the learned MACT has
rightly passed the award and the appeal may kindly be
dismissed.
11. Primary purpose of the Court is to grant just
compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance
Company Limited versus 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 claimants.
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 pay
ment 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,
8 2026:HHC:9662
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 de
termining the amount of compensation which
appears to be just.
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 benfits
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)
12. Being guided by the above decision, now, this
Court would proceed further that whether the learned MACT
has awarded ‘just compensation’ or not. In order to ascertain
the said fact, it would be just and appropriate to discuss the
evidence, so adduced by the claimant, before the learned
MACT.
13. Claimant Kamaljeet has taken the stand that the
accident had taken place on 25.05.2013 at 7:50 pm and he
was taken to Civil Hospital Hamirpur, where he remained till
10:00 pm and thereafter, taken to PGI Chandigarh, where he
9 2026:HHC:9662
remained admit as indoor patient till 28.05.2013 and on
10.10.2013, he was again admitted at PGI Chandigarh and
remained admit till 25.10.2013. Operation was also
conducted and as such, according to him, he was forced to
spent Rs. 10,00,000/ on his treatment, including taxi
charges and medicines etc.
14. In order to prove the said fact, the claimant has
examined PW2, Babu Ram Majhol, who is a registered
contractor and executing the work awarded to him by PWD
and I&PH Departments. Kamaljeet was working as painter
cumsupervisor with him. On 01.01.2010, an agreement had
been executed between Kamaljeet and this witness, with
regard to his work with him as paintercumsupervisor. This
witness has proved the same as Ext. PW2/A. He used to pay
Rs. 12,000/ per month to Kamaljeet and in the year 2013,
he had started paying a sum of Rs. 13,000/ per month. In
this regard, he has issued the certificate Ext. PW2/B.
According to this witness, after the accident, which had taken
place on 25.05.2013, Kamaljeet had not attended his duties.
10 2026:HHC:9662
14.1 In the crossexamination, this witness has
deposed that he is working as contractor from the year 1979
and has proved the licence, which is valid upto 31.03.2016.
15. PW4 Vinod Kumar deposed that his services were
hired by the claimant from 28.05.2013 to October, 2013 and
claimant used to pay him Rs. 4000/ per month.
16. Claimant Kamaljeet, when appeared in the witness
box, as PW6, has deposed that after the accident, he was
taken to District Hospital, Hamirpur, from where he was
referred to PGI Chandigarh. He remained admit at PGI
Chandigarh from 25.05.2013 till 28.05.2013. He was
operated there and rod was inserted. On 28
th
May, 2013, he
was sent back to Bilaspur and thereafter, he had visited PGI
Chandigarh for follow up treatment. In the month of October,
2013, again operation was conducted and due to the said
injury, his right leg became two inches shorter and he could
not bend the same. He has further deposed that he remained
confine to bed from 25.05.2013 and now, he is walking with
the help of crutches. In order to visit Chandigarh, he had
hired the car of one Gulshan. The Doctor at PGI issued the
11 2026:HHC:9662
Disability Certificate, according to which, he has sustained
40% disability, permanent in nature.
17. PW7, Dr. Rama Kisan, Senior Resident,
Department of Orthopedic, PGI Chandigarh, deposed that he
was authorized by Dr. R.K. Kanojia and Dr. Aditya Aggarwal,
to depose vide authorization letter Ext. PW7/A and Ext.
PW7/B, as both the Doctors are in OPD duty. This Doctor
was member of the surgical team, which had conducted
surgery on the person of the claimant. He has explained the
fracture as right fracture of digital femur. Artificial fixture
were inserted. The claimant was discharged on 28.05.2013
and again operated on 12.10.2013, as fracture had not
healed. He has also proved the Disability Certificate Ext.
PW7/C, by deposing that the Board found 40% disability,
permanent in nature.
18. In this background, now, this Court would
proceed further to determine the amount of compensation, for
which, the claimant is entitled to, in the present case.
19. The learned MACT, in the present case, has
although granted the compensation under various heads, but,
12 2026:HHC:9662
the evidence, which had been led by the parties has not been
discussed. As such, entitlement of the claimant under
various heads is liable to be refixed by this Court, on the
basis of the evidence, so adduced. Consequently, entitlement
of the claimant is assessed, as under:
1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES :
(a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS :
20. The accident in question had taken place on
25.05.2013 and thereafter, the claimant was taken to District
Hospital Hamirpur, from where, he was referred to PGI
Chandigarh, where he remained admit up to 27.05.2013 and
discharged on 28.05.2013. Thus, the total period for which
the claimant remained admit, comes to four days. Thereafter,
he was again operated upon, on 12.10.2013. The Medical
Board has found disability as 40% permanent in nature.
21. Considering the above facts, the period of
hospitalization, as well as, the intervening period between
first surgery and the second surgery must be traumatic and
painful for the claimant, for which he is held entitled for a
sum of Rs. 30 x 5 x 1000 = Rs. 1,50,000/, under this head.
13 2026:HHC:9662
(b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE :
22. Considering the period of hospitalization, the time
between the first surgery and second surgery, as well as, the
time taken for convalescence, this Court is of the view that,
for about one year, the claimant could not enjoy the life of a
normal human being. As such, claimant is held entitled for a
sum of Rs. 2,00,000/, under this head, for which, the
learned MACT, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/.
(c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE :
23. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that on
account of the injuries sustained/suffered by the claimant,
his life span has been shortened. As such, no amount of
compensation is being awarded, under this head.
2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES:
(a) LOSS OF EARNING AND EARNING CAPACITY:
24. The claimant has pleaded that he was working as
contractor and painter and was earning Rs. 30,000/ per
month. However, the claimant himself has examined PW2
Babu Ram Majhol, who is registered contractor and according
to him, Kamaljeet was employed by him on 01.01.2010, as
14 2026:HHC:9662
paintercumsupervisor, vide an agreement Ext. PW2/A and
he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/ per month to
him. In the year 2013, his monthly income was Rs. 13,000/
per month. In this regard, he issued certificate Ext. PW2/B.
25. Although, the said evidence is beyond pleadings,
but, considering the nature of the proceedings under the M.V.
Act, which are summary in nature, this Court is of the view
that the pleadings of the claimant, qua the fact, that he was
working as contractor and painter and self employed as
contractor and earning Rs. 30,000/ per month, is not fatal
for the case of the claimant.
26. The learned MACT in the present case has taken
the monthly earning of the claimant as Rs. 6,000/ and after
adding 50% on account of his future prospects, his monthly
income has been taken as Rs. 9,000/. In such situation, the
material question, which arises for determination before this
Court about the variation between the pleadings and the
evidence. Keeping in view the low legal literacy of Indian
masses, at the worst, it can be said that the claimant, in the
claim petition, has given an exaggerated version, with regard
15 2026:HHC:9662
to his income as Rs. 30,000/, and in order to justify the
same, he had taken the plea that he was a contractor and
painter.
27. Admittedly, the claimant has not produced any
document to prove that he was working as contractor,
whereas by examining PW2, he has probablized that he was
working with Babu Ram, who is a registered contractor with
I&PH and PWD Departments, who used to pay Rs. 13,000/
per month to the claimant, at the relevant time. Not only
this, he has proved the certificate Ext. PW2/A and Ext.
PW2/B, which were issued on 30.06.2013. In the cross
examination by learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, this witness has categorically stated that he is
having the contractorship licence, which is valid up to
31.03.2016. When a person, who is proved to be a registered
contractor with PWD and I&PH departments, has stated, on
oath, with regard to the employment of the claimant as
paintercumsupervisor, then the learned MACT has fallen
into error by holding that the monthly income of the claimant
has been proved as Rs. 6,000/ per month.
16 2026:HHC:9662
28. Moreover, it has not been suggested to the
claimant that he was neither a painter nor contractor nor
earning Rs. 30,000/ per month. In such situation,
whatsoever deposed by PW2 and claimant PW6, can be
taken into consideration to determine the monthly income of
the claimant, at the relevant time, as Rs. 13,000/ per month.
The total period of hospitalization including the time between
the first surgery and second surgery, as well as, the time
taken for convalescence, comes to about 18 months and due
to the injuries suffered by him, which resulted into 40%
permanent disability, the claimant could not contribute
anything to his family. As such, for the same, he is held
entitled for a sum of Rs. 13,000/ x 18 = Rs. 2,34,000/.
29. The disability is about 40%. Keeping in view the
nature of the job, the said disability can be taken as 40%, as,
no evidence has been led, to demonstrate that the claimant
cannot do any work. The doctor, who has proved the
disability certificate, PW7, has stated that the disability
would remain there forever, but this does not mean that
17 2026:HHC:9662
claimant cannot do any other work, except the work of
painter/supervisor.
30. The monthly income of the claimant has been held
to be Rs. 13,000/ per month and 40% of the same comes to
Rs. 5,200/ per month. Age of the claimant has been proved
to be 37 years and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in ‘Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi
Transport Corporation and another’ , reported as 2009 (6)
SCC 121, multiplier of ‘15’ is to be applied, in this case.
Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the amount on account
of loss of earning capacity, which is assessed as Rs. 5200/ x
12 x 15 = Rs. 9,36,000/.
(b) MEDICAL EXPENSES:
31. Learned MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.
2,50,000/ to the claimant, on account of medical expenses,
which have been rightly awarded to him and need no
interference by this Court.
(c) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES:
18 2026:HHC:9662
32. Learned MACT has awarded an amount of Rs.
50,000/ to the claimant, on account of transportation
charges, which have been rightly awarded to him.
(d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES:
33. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant
was 37 years and on account of the accident, he had
sustained injuries and suffered disability. His period of
hospitalization, as well as, convalescence has been held to be
18 months i.e. 547 days. During that period, the claimant
might have taken special diet, for which, it would be just and
appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 100/ per day, under this
head. Thus, the compensation, under the head ‘special diet’
comes to Rs. 547 x 100 = Rs. 54,700/.
34. The claimant had also engaged services of
attendant, during this period, for which, it would be just and
appropriate to award Rs. 4000/ per month, under the head
‘attendant charges’. Thus, the compensation, under this
head, comes to Rs. 4000/ x 18 = Rs. 72,000/.
35. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held
entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ + Rs. 2,00,000/ + Rs.
19 2026:HHC:9662
2,34,000/ + Rs. 9,36,000/ + Rs. 2,50,000/ + Rs. 50,000/
+ Rs. 54,700/ + Rs. 72,000/ = Rs. 19,46,700/, along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the
petition till its realization from respondent No. 3.
36. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by
modifying the award passed by the learned MACT and the
amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 13,23,000/ to
Rs. 19,46,700/, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from
the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the
whole amount, with upto date interest.
37. However, keeping in view the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs.
38. Memo of costs be prepared.
39. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
31
st
March, 2026 Judge
(Pramod Kumar)
Legal Notes
Add a Note....