1 2026:HHC:9641-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

       FAO No. 4060 of 2013

   Reserved on  : 28.02.2026

         Decided on : 31.03.2026

National Insurance Company Ltd.              .......Appellant

Versus

Rekha Devi and others            ...Respondents

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

1

  Yes.

For the appellant:   Mr.   Deepak   Bhasin,   Senior

Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr.

Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. 

For the respondents:   Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate,

for respondents No. 1 to 3.

Mr.   Sahil   Dixit,   Advocate,   for

respondents No. 4 to 7.

None for respondents No. 8 and

10.

Mr.   B.M.   Chauhan,   Senior

Advocate, assisted by Mr. Amit

Himalvi,   Advocate,   for

respondent No. 9.

1

Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 2026:HHC:9641-DB

Virender Singh, Judge.

Appellant­National Insurance Company Ltd. has

preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles   Act,   1988,   as   amended   up   to   date,   (hereinafter

referred   to   as   ‘the   M.V.   Act’),   against   the   award   dated

22.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal­I,   Sirmaur   District   at   Nahan,   H.P.   (hereinafter,

referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 18­

MAC/2 of 2009, titled as “Rekha Devi and others Vs Manoj

(deceased) through his LRs and others”. 

2. By way of award dated 22.03.2013, the learned

Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents

No. 1 to 3, by awarding a sum of Rs. 5,54,160/­, along with

interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the

petition,   till   payment.     The   ultimate   liability   to   pay   the

amount   of   compensation   has   been   fastened   upon   the

appellant­Insurance Company.  

3 2026:HHC:9641-DB

3. 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 Tribunal.  

4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal,

before this Court, may be summed up as under:­

4.1. Petitioners,   being   widow   and   sons   of   deceased

Baldev Singh, had filed the claim petition under Section 166

of   the   M.V.   Act,   against   the   respondents,   seeking   the

compensation, on account of death of Sh. Baldev Singh, in a

road side accident, involving vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No.

HP17A­6406,   driven   by   respondent   No.   1,   in   a   rash   and

negligent manner.

4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that

Sh. Baldev Singh, who was aged about 44 years, at the time

of his death, was a tailor by profession and was earning more

than Rs. 10,000/­ per month.

4.3 According   to   them,   on   21.12.2008,   deceased

Baldev Singh was crossing Bata Pul and meanwhile, vehicle

Tata   Sumo   bearing   No.   HP17A­6406,   being   driven   by

respondent No. 1, in rash and negligent manner, hit Baldev

4 2026:HHC:9641-DB

Singh and he sustained injuries.   He was taken to Paonta

hospital, from where, he was referred to Dehradoon, and from

where, he was further referred to Chandigarh, but he expired

due to head injuries.

4.4 In   the   investigation,   the   police   has   impounded

vehicle   No.   UA07B­7120   and   as   such,   owner   of   the   said

vehicle   was   also   made   party.     Information   regarding   the

accident was given to the police.

4.5 On the basis of above facts, the petitioners have

sought   the   compensation   of   Rs.   12,00,000/­   along   with

interest, from the date of accident till realization.

5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been

contested by the respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d), who are the LRs

of   respondent   No.   1   Manoj   Kumar,   registered   owner   and

driver   of   vehicle   No.   HP17A­6406.   They   have   taken   the

preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable,

the petitioners are concealing the material facts and vehicle

No. HP17A­6406 was not involved in the accident in question.

5.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have

been denied by taking the stand that vehicle No. HP17A­6406

5 2026:HHC:9641-DB

was not involved in the accident in question.   According to

them, as per the investigation conducted by police, vehicle

No. UA07B­7120 was found involved in the accident.

6. Respondent No. 2, who has been impleaded as

owner­cum­driver   of   vehicle   No.   UA07B­7120,   has   filed

separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections, that the

petition   is   not   maintainable   and   the   petitioners   have

concealed the material facts and have not come to the Court

with clean hands.

6.1 According to him, he had sold Tata Sumo bearing

registration No. UA07B­7120 to Sh. Sandeep Kumar son of

Sh. Jaiyanti Parsad, resident of Village Tokion, Tehsil Paonta

Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.   In order to substantiate the

said fact, the agreement/affidavit of sale, dated 14.07.2008

has been annexed with the reply.

6.2 As per respondent No. 2, the physical possession

of the said vehicle was handed over along with the documents

to   Sh.   Sandeep   Kumar,   from   the   date   of   its   sale   i.e.

14.07.2008,   whereas   the   accident   had   taken   place   on

21.12.2008.   At that time, according to respondent No. 2,

6 2026:HHC:9641-DB

Sandeep Kumar was owner and in possession of the vehicle

No. UA07B­7120.  All these facts have been pleaded to shift

the entire liability upon Sandeep Kumar.

6.3 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have

been denied, by reasserting the above mentioned facts.

7. Respondent No. 3­New India Assurance Company,

insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. UA07B­7120, has

filed   a   separate   reply   by   taking   preliminary   objections   of

maintainability, that the driver of the vehicle No. UA07B­7120

was not holding valid and effective driving licence, the said

vehicle   was   being   plied   in   violation   of   the   terms   and

conditions of the insurance policy and that the claim petition

has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with the owner

and driver of the vehicle.

7.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have

been denied.

8. Despite the notice of the petition, respondent No.

4,   has   not   opted   to   contest   the   claim   petition,   whereas,

respondent No. 5­National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer

of vehicle No. HP17A­6406, has filed the separate reply, by

7 2026:HHC:9641-DB

taking preliminary objections that the driver of the vehicle No.

HP17A­6406 was not having valid and effective driving licence

at the relevant time, the vehicle was being permitted to ply in

violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, and

that no accident had allegedly taken place with vehicle No.

HP17A­6406.

8.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have

mainly been denied for want of knowledge.

9. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   the   learned

Tribunal, had framed the following issues, vide order dated

06.06.2011:­

1. Whether Baldev Singh died on account of rash and  

negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent  

No. 1 Manoj on 21.12.2008 at Batapul near Majra, as 

alleged? OPP

2. In case issue No. 1 is determined in affirmative, to  

what   amount   of   compensation   the   petitioners   are  

entitled to and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not  

possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive  

the vehicle, as alleged? OPR­3

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in  

violation of the terms and conditions of insurance  

policy, as alleged? OPR­3

5. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the 

petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, 

as alleged? OPR­3

8 2026:HHC:9641-DB

6. Relief.

10. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to

lead evidence.

11. After the closure of the evidence, learned Tribunal

has   allowed   the   petition,   by   awarding   a   sum   of   Rs.

5,54,160/­,   along   with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per

annum   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   claim   petition,   till

payment,   to   the   claimants   by   fastening   the   liability   upon

respondent No. 5, being insurer of vehicle No. HP17A­6406. 

12. Aggrieved from the said award, respondent No. 5

i.e. insurer of vehicle No. HP17A­6406, has filed the present

claim   petition,   assailing   the   award   passed   by   learned

Tribunal, by virtue of which the entire liability to pay the

compensation   has   been   fastened   upon   respondent   No.

5/National Insurance Company.

13. The award has been assailed on the grounds that

the learned MACT has not properly decided issue No. 1 and

wrongly fastened the entire liability upon respondent No. 5.

14. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that vehicle No.

HP17A­6406 was not involved in the accident in question and

9 2026:HHC:9641-DB

as per the evidence on the record, vehicle make Tata Sumo

No. UA07B­7120, was, in fact, involved in the accident in

question.  In order to buttress its contention, the insurance

company has relied upon final report submitted by the police

in this regard.

15. According   to   the   appellant­insurance   company,

the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304­A IPC was filed

against Sandeep Kumar.   Apart from this, the amount of

award   is   also   stated   to   be   excessive,   as,   according   to

respondent No. 5, learned MACT has erred while assessing

the compensation, ignoring the principle of just compensation

and   wrongly   awarded   30%   increase   on   account   of   future

prospects.

16. On   the   basis   of   above   grounds   of   appeal,   so

highlighted   above,   Sh.   Deepak   Bhasin,   Senior   Advocate

assisted by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, appearing for the

appellant, has prayed that award passed by learned Tribunal

may   kindly   be   set   aside   by   exonerating   the   insurance

company from paying the amount of compensation.

10 2026:HHC:9641-DB

17. The   prayer,   so   made,   by   learned   Counsel

appearing   for   the   appellant/respondent   No.   5   has   been

opposed by Sh. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by

Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 9,

as well as, Sh. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondents No.

1   to   3,   while   contending   that   learned   MACT   has   rightly

passed the award and the appeal may kindly be dismissed.

18. On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   Sahil   Dixit,   Advocate,

appearing   for   respondents   No.   4   to   7,   has   supported   the

award   passed   by   learned   Tribunal,   however,   he   has

submitted that adequate compensation has not been awarded

to   the   claimants   and   prayed   that   award   may   kindly   be

enhanced by awarding just compensation to the claimants.

19. Since, respondent No. 5 insurance company has

disputed the involvement of vehicle No. HP17A­6406 in the

accident in question, as such, the relevant evidence adduced

by the parties to prove the involvement of vehicle is required

to be discussed.

19.1 The   claimants   have   examined   PW­1,   HHC   Lal

Bahadur,   who   has   proved   the   copy   of   FIR   Ext.   PW1/A.

11 2026:HHC:9641-DB

According   to   this   witness   he   has   neither   investigated   the

matter nor he is aware about the fact whether the charge­

sheet has been filed against the owner of vehicle no UA07B­

7120.

19.2 Claimant No. 1 Rekha Devi (PW­2), deposed about

the fact that her husband has died in a road accident on

21.12.2008.  She herself deposed in her examination­in­chief

that as per the police investigation, the vehicle involved in the

accident is Tata Sumo No. UA07B­7120, but according to her,

as per eye witness, vehicle involved in the accident is HP17A­

6406.  Even, in the cross­examination, she has asserted that

as   per   the   investigation,   vehicle   No.   UA07B­7120   was

involved.  FIR was not got registered by this witness.

19.3 The claimants have examined one Jai Kishan (PW­

3),   as   eye   witness   to   the   alleged   accident.     This   witness

deposed that on 21.12.2008, he had gone to his shop at

Batapul.  Baldev Singh has crossed him and he was moving

to   Batapul   and   a   minute   later,   he   heard   the   sound   at

Batapul.  When, he reached at the spot, then, he noticed that

Baldev Singh had met with an accident.  He noticed vehicle

12 2026:HHC:9641-DB

No. HP17A­6406 on the spot, whose driver, on seeing him,

switched off the lights and fled away towards Majra Bazaar.

He   has   reasserted   in   his   examination­in­chief   that   the

accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of

vehicle No. HP17A­6406.   This witness has also lodged the

FIR in this regard.

19.4 In the cross­examination, this witness admitted

that accident had taken place in the evening hours of the day.

In the cross­examination by learned counsel appearing for

respondent No. 2, this witness again admitted that accident

had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle

No. HP17A­6406.   He specifically stated that except vehicle

No. HP17A­6406, no other vehicle was present on the spot.

In the cross­examination by learned counsel for respondents

No. 3 and 5, this witness has denied all the suggestions,

which   were   put   to   him,   to   demonstrate   that   vehicle   No.

HP17A­6406 was not involved in the accident.  He has denied

all the suggestions which were put to him by learned counsel

for respondents No. 3 and 5.

13 2026:HHC:9641-DB

19.5 Rajender Parkash­respondent No. 2 appeared in

the witness box as RW­1 and deposed that on 21.12.2008, he

had sold the vehicle No. UA07B­7120 to Sh. Sandeep Kumar.

In this regard, he had sworn­in affidavit on 14.07.2008 and

physical possession of the vehicle was handed over to him.

He has feigned ignorance with regard to the accident, which

had taken place on 21.12.2008.

19.6 In   the   cross­examination   by   learned   counsel

appearing for respondents No. 3 and 5, he deposed that after

14.07.2008, he has no concern whatsoever with vehicle No.

UA07B­7120.     However,   no   information   was   given   to

respondent No. 4, with regard to transfer of the vehicle in the

name   of   Sandeep   Kumar.     In   the   cross­examination   by

learned counsel appearing for the claimants, this witness has

admitted that as per registration certificate, the ownership of

the said vehicle has duly been recorded in his name. 

19.7 This is the entire evidence, led before the learned

Tribunal. 

20. In   this   case,   appellant­Insurance   Company   has

assailed the award, mainly on the ground that the claimants

14 2026:HHC:9641-DB

themselves in para 14 of the claim petition, have mentioned

about the involvement of two vehicles.  Para 14 of the claim

petition, is reproduced as under:­

“Registration number and type of vehicle involved in the

accident.

Tata Sumo HP17A­6406 as per eye witness, but as per

police investigation, the vehicle involved in the accident

is Tata Sumo UA07B­7120.”

21. On the basis of above facts, it has been contended

that the learned MACT has not taken into consideration this

admitted fact.  As such, a prayer has been made to set aside

the award.

22. The   claimants   have   categorically   stated   that

vehicle No. HP17A­6406 was involved in the accident, as per

eye   witness,   however,   in   the   police   investigation,   the

involvement of vehicle No. UA07B­7120 has been found.  The

eye witness has been examined by the claimants as PW­3.

PW­3, Jai Kishan categorically stated on oath that on the

spot, Tata Sumo bearing No. HP17A­6406 was there and on

seeing this witness, the driver switched off the lights and

drove the said vehicle towards Majra Bazaar.  In the next line,

he has categorically stated that the accident in question had

15 2026:HHC:9641-DB

taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

vehicle  No. HP17A­6406.    The  appellant­respondent No.  5

(Insurance Company) has not even given a suggestion to this

witness that vehicle  No.  UA07B­7120 was  involved  in the

accident in question.  When suggestion qua the material fact

has   not   been   given   to   the   witness,   meaning   thereby,

whatsoever deposed by this witness qua the involvement of

vehicle No. HP17A­6406 stands admitted by respondent No.

5­appellant (Insurance Company).  Vehicle No. HP17A­6406,

as   per   the   claimants,   was   driven   by   Manoj   Kumar,   the

predecessor­in­interest of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d).

23. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been

placed   on   record   as   Ext.   P­X,   by   the   claimants.     The

Insurance   Company­appellant   has   not   bothered   even   to

summon the I.O., to know about the manner how he had

concluded  that  vehicle  No.  HP17A­6406  was   not  involved,

but, it was vehicle No. UA07B­7120, which was involved in

the accident.

24. Merely because the I.O. has concluded so, is too

short to take away the presumption of truth attached with the

16 2026:HHC:9641-DB

statement   of   a   person,   who   deposed,   on   oath,   before   the

Court and he was also subjected to cross­examination by the

opposite party, including the Insurance Company, which has

now filed the appeal, before this Court.

25. Pradhan Gram Panchayat Senwala has not been

examined by the Insurance Company, who allegedly disclosed

to the police that vehicle No. HP17A­6406, was noticed by

him parked in his house.   The report under Section 173(2)

Cr.P.C. is totally silent about the fact as to how the I.O. had

concluded about the non­involvement of vehicle No. HP17A­

6406   and   involvement   of   vehicle   No.   UA07B­7120   in   the

accident.   When a witness, who appeared before the Court,

has deposed categorically, on oath, about the involvement of

vehicle   No.   HP17A­6406,   then,   the   report   under   Section

173(2) Cr.P.C., indicating about the involvement of vehicle No.

UA07B­7120, is inconsequential, as the statement before the

Court carries presumption with it.

26. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view

that the learned MACT has rightly relied upon the statement

of PW­3 Jai Kishan and thus, the claimants have proved the

17 2026:HHC:9641-DB

involvement of vehicle No. HP17A­6406 on the touchstone of

preponderance of probabilities.  

27. Evidence of RW­1 has rightly been discarded by

learned MACT, as this witness has nowhere stated that he

was eye witness to the accident in question.  At the best, his

evidence can   be considered qua the transfer of vehicle No.

UA07B­7120 to Sandeep Kumar.   When a person has not

seen   the   accident   in   question,   then   his   deposition   is   not

relevant to the adjudication of the issue, whether vehicle No.

HP17A­6406 was involved or not.

28. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion

for this Court to interfere with the findings, so recorded by

the learned MACT.

29. No other point has been urged or argued.

30. Consequently,   the   appeal   is   dismissed   and   the

award passed by the learned MACT is upheld.

31. No order as to costs.

32. Record be sent back.

                     (Virender Singh)

31

st

 March, 2026 Judge 

(Pramod Kumar)