1 2026:HHC:9420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

FAO (MVA) No. : 119 of 2013

Reserved on : 28.02.2026

Decided on : 31.03.2026

Ram Lal …...Appellant

Versus

Narain Singh (deceased) & Another …...Respondents

Coram:

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

Whether approved for reporting?

1

Yes.

For the appellant :Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate.

For the respondents :Name of respondent No.1 stands

deleted.

Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Pankaj

Chauhan, Advocates for respondent

No.2.

Virender Singh, Judge

Appellant Ram Lal, has filed the present appeal,

under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended

upto date, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the

award dated 31.12.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the

‘learned MACT’), in MAC Petition No.19 of 2009, titled as Ram Lal

Versus Narain Singh & Another.

1

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

2 2026:HHC:9420

2. By way of award dated 31.12.2012, the learned MACT

has allowed the claim petition filed by the appellant, by

awarding a sum of Rs.29,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of

7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the

amount is deposited with the learned MACT.

3. During the pendency of the lis before this court,

owner of the truck Shri Narain Singh has expired and considering

the fact that his LR, his wife, is already on record as respondent,

his name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties,

vide order dated 29.10.2024.

4. Parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred

to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the

learned MACT.

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

before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-

5.1. Claimant Ram Lal, had filed the claim petition, under

Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation on account of

the disability/injuries suffered/sustained, on account of the

accident, which had taken place on 26.10.2008, at about 5.15

p.m., near Navodya School Kothipura, on Bilaspur-Shimla road,

involving Truck No.HP11-0599 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.1 and driven by

Suraj Kumar, who was initially impleaded as respondent No.2, in

3 2026:HHC:9420

the lis, however, on account of his death, his name was ordered

to be deleted from the array of parties, by the learned MACT,

vide order dated 03.05.2011.

5.2. According to the claimant, the accident, in question,

had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.2 Suraj Kumar (since deceased). The information

regarding the accident was given to Police Station Sadar

Bilaspur, where FIR No.349 of 2008, dated 26.10.2008, has been

registered.

5.3. Elaborating his stand, it is the case of the claimant

that on the fateful day, i.e., on 26.10.2008, at about 5.15 p.m.,

he, along with his son and wife, was coming back from Solan to

Lakhanpur (Bilaspur), in his vehicle No.HP24A-0648, and reached

near Navodya School, Kothipura, on Bilaspur-Shimla road,

meanwhile, the offending vehicle came from opposite direction,

being driven, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the car.

Resultantly, the claimant sustained injuries.

5.4. After the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle

fled away from the spot and left the offending vehicle on the

spot. The claimant was firstly taken to the Zonal Hospital

Bilaspur, where he remained admit from 26.10.2008 to

30.10.2008. Thereafter, for further treatment, he was referred

to IGMC Shimla/PGI Chandigarh, but, he was taken to Silver Oak

4 2026:HHC:9420

Hospital Mohali, where, he remained admit from 03.11.2008 and

was operated there.

5.5. According to the claimant, he was forced to spent

Rs.1,83,353/- on his treatment. Highlighting his bright past and

bleak future, the claimant has sought compensation of

Rs.50,00,000/-.

6. When put to notice, the owner and driver of the

offending vehicle had contested the claim petition, by filing their

joint reply, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections

that the petition is not maintainable; claimant has not disclosed

the true facts and the claim petition is bad for non-joinder or

mis-joinder of necessary parties.

6.1. On merits, the contents of the claim petition, have

been denied, however, the accident has impliedly been admitted

by pleading that contents of para 9 need no reply. It is their

further case that the offending vehicle was not involved in the

accident, however, the car of the claimant was hit by another

truck.

7. Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal

of the claim petition.

8. The claimant has filed the rejoinder to the reply filed

by the respondents, by denying the preliminary objections, as

5 2026:HHC:9420

well as, the factual position, which has been contested and

controverted by the respondents.

9. From the pleadings of the parties, learned MACT has

framed the following issues vide order dated 02.08.2010 :

1.Whether the accident, in question, was the

result of rash and negligent driving of

respondent No.2 and the petitioner sustained

injuries in this accident? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, in affirmative, whether

the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so

from whom and to what extent? OPP

3.Whether the petition is not maintainable, as

alleged? OPR

4.Whether petition is bad for non joinder and mis-

joinder of necessary parties, as alleged?OPR

5. Relief.

10. After framing the issues, the parties to the claim

petition, were directed to adduce evidence.

11. After closure of the evidence, the learned MACT has

decided the claim petition and has awarded the amount, as

mentioned above.

12. Aggrieved from the said award, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal before this Court, seeking

enhancement of the amount of compensation. According to the

claimant, the learned MACT has not awarded any compensation

for 5% permanent disability, as well as, on account of loss of

6 2026:HHC:9420

earning capacity. Similarly, the award has also been assailed on

the ground that the learned MACT has not awarded adequate

compensation.

13. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Surya Chauhan,

Advocate, has prayed that the compensation awarded by the

learned MACT, does not fall within the definition of ‘just

compensation’.

14. Per contra, Mr. Tejasvi Sharma and Mr. Pankaj

Chaudhary, Advocates, appearing for respondent No.2, have

supported the award, and submitted that the learned MACT has

taken into consideration the entire facts and circumstances, as

well as, the evidence, so adduced, by the parties and has rightly

awarded the compensation. According to them, the award

passed by the learned MACT, does not require any interference

by this Court.

15. In this case, the appeal has now been filed by the

claimant, with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation.

Meaning thereby, the findings of learned trial Court on issue

No.1, have now attained finality being not challenged by the

respondent. As such, now, this Court would proceed straightway

to ascertain the fact as to whether the amount, awarded to the

claimant, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not.

7 2026:HHC:9420

16. 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

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.

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)

8 2026:HHC:9420

17. In this case, learned MACT has not awarded the

compensation under two major heads i.e. pecuniary damages,

as well as, non-pecuniary damages. In such situation, being the

First Appellate Court, it is the duty of this Court to determine the

entitlement of the claimant under various heads, on the basis of

the evidence, so adduced, by the claimant.

18. In order to prove his case, the claimant has examined

PW-1 Dr. M.I. Ahmad, Orthopedic Surgeon, Regional Hospital,

Bilaspur, who has issued the disability certificate Ex.PW-1/A.

According to him, on 30.07.2011, the claimant had appeared

before the Medical Board and disability on the person of

claimant was assessed by the Board and the certificate Ex.PW-

1/A, was issued, according to which, there is permanent

disability to the extent of 5%. In the cross-examination, he has

admitted that a person with 5% permanent disability can easily

drive the vehicle and can travel also. Similarly, he has stated

that the requirement of attendant is not there for a person

having 5% permanent disability. According to him, 5%

permanent disability has no concern with the paralysis report.

19. PW-4 K.R. Chauhan, is the Manager of Himachal

Pradesh Gramin Bank. According to him, claimant is working

with them as Assistant Manager and due to the accident, he

remained on earned leave for 97 days and 3 days casual leave.

9 2026:HHC:9420

In this regard, he has issued certificate Ex.PW-4/A. He has

further deposed that monthly salary of the claimant at the

relevant time was Rs.30,796/- and in this regard, he has issued

salary certificate Ex.PW-4/B. He has further deposed that the

claimant is working as Manager with the Bank.

20. Claimant Ram Lal, when appeared in the witness-box,

has deposed that his date of birth is 13.05.1955. On

26.08.2008, at about 5.00-5.15 p.m., he sustained injuries in the

road side accident, involving the offending vehicle, which,

according to him, was being driven in a rash and negligent

manner. After the accident, he was taken to hospital at Bilaspur,

where, he remained admit from 26.10.2008 to 30.10.2008.

Thereafter, he was referred to IGMC Shimla, however, he was

shifted to Shivalik Hospital & Trauma Centre, Mohali,

Chandigarh. He has specifically stated that due to the accident,

he remained on leave for about 100 days and joined on

01.02.2009. He has further deposed that due to the injuries

sustained in the accident, he became permanently disabled. He

has also tendered the medical bills Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. He has

also hired the services of attendant-cum-driver, to whom, he

used to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per month. The said driver was

hired for two months i.e. November and December, 2008.

Thereafter, he used to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to the driver for

10 2026:HHC:9420

the period 1.1.2009 to 31.03.2009. He has further deposed that

he is still under treatment and facing difficulty in walking. This

witness, in the cross-examination, has admitted that in the year

2003, he got treatment from Mohali for Brain tumor. He has also

admitted that he got salary for leave period also.

21. The person who has been engaged as driver, by the

claimant, appeared in the witness-box as PW-7 and deposed that

his services, as driver, were hired by the claimant from the

month of November and December and received a sum of

Rs.6000/-, (@ Rs.3000/- per month). Thereafter, from January

2009 to 31.03.2009, he has received a sum of Rs.5,000/- per

month from the claimant. He has further deposed that his

services were hired by the claimant till his joining for about 15

months, as, after joining the services, he used to take the

claimant to the Bank.

22. On the basis of the evidence discussed above, this

Court is of the view that the learned MACT has to award the

compensation, under the various heads, as culled out by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar versus Ajay Kumar &

Another, (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 343 , whereas, the

learned MACT has discussed the evidence and awarded the

compensation, under different heads, in para 24 of the

impugned award.

11 2026:HHC:9420

23. The findings, should have been recorded by the

learned MACT under the different heads. In such situation, this

Court has to venture to grant the compensation under various

heads, which is assessed, as under:-

1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES:

(a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS:

24. Learned MACT has granted only Rs.5,000/-, under the

head pain and sufferings, whereas, according to the evidence, so

adduced, by the parties, after the accident, the claimant was

firstly, taken to Hospital at Bilaspur, where, he remained admit

from 26.10.2008 to 30.10.2008. Those initial period of

hospitalization comes to five days. Thereafter, he had taken

treatment from Shivalik Hospital & Trauma Centre, Mohali. In

this regard, he has relied upon certificate Ex.PW-6/B. He was

admitted on 3.11.2008 and operated on 04.11.2008 and

thereafter, discharged on 06.11.2008. The said period of

hospitalization comes to four days. Thus, the total period of

hospitalization comes to nine days.

25. The period of hospitalization and convalescence,

must be painful and traumatic for the claimant, for which, he is

held entitled to a sum of Rs.1000/- per day. As such, the amount

12 2026:HHC:9420

of compensation awarded by learned MACT is liable to be

enhanced and the appellant is held entitled to a sum of

Rs.1000x9= Rs.9,000/-, under this head.

(b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE:

26. The period of hospitalization, is held to be 10 days

and as per the certificate issued by the Bank Ex.PW-4/A, the

claimant, thereafter, remained on earned leave for 97 days and

3 days casual leave. Meaning thereby, from the date of

accident, i.e., 26.10.2008, till 05.03.2009, the claimant could not

enjoy the life of a normal human being, on account of his

hospitalization and the time taken for convalescence.

27. In this case, there is disability to the extent of 5%

permanent in nature. As per Ex.PW-1/A, although it has also

been proved, in this case, that on account of permanent

disablement neither the promotional avenues of the claimant

have diminished, nor, his salary has been decreased, however,

for 5% permanent disability, which has adverse impact on the

day-to-day life of the claimant, he is also entitled to some

amount as compensation.

28. Considering the period of convalescence, along with

the fact that he was forced to live with 5% permanent disability,

13 2026:HHC:9420

this Court is of the view that he is entitled to a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/-, under the head ‘loss of enjoyment of life’.

(c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE:

29. There is no evidence on the record to prove or to

suggest that due to disability and injury suffered, the life span of

the claimant 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:

30. There is no evidence on the record to demonstrate

that on account of injury sustained and disability suffered, the

promotional avenues of the claimant have been diminished and

there is any loss of earning capacity. However, the claimant was

forced to take earned leave for a period of 97 days i.e.,

27.10.2008 to 31.01.2009. The employee is entitled to

encashment of earned leave to the extent of 300 days. When,

the claimant was forced to take earned leave, on account of

injury suffered by him, he was held entitled to the salary of 3

months and 7 days, under this head. The salary of the claimant

14 2026:HHC:9420

at the relevant time was Rs.30,796/-. Thus, the claimant is held

entitled to a sum of Rs.99,573/- (Rs.1026x97).

(b) MEDICAL EXPENSES:

31. As per the certificate Ex.PW-6/B, the claimant

remained admit in Shivalik Hospital and Trauma Centre Mohali,

for about four days, where, he was operated and he may have

attended the hospital for follow up. The claimant has annexed

the medical bills Ex.P-1 to P-16, the total of which comes to

Rs.8994/-. Hence, by rounding off, the learned MACT has

awarded a sum of Rs.9,000/- to the claimant.

(c) TRAVELLING EXPENSES:

32. The claimant had taken treatment in Shivalik Hospital

and Trauma Centre Mohali, and to visit Mohali from his native

place, he might had hired the services of driver. Considering the

said fact, this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to

some amount, under this head. Although, in the statement of

PW-7 Manoj Kumar, he has deposed that his services, as driver,

had been engaged for about 15 months, but, the said fact

cannot be taken as a gospel truth. However, it can be held that

the services of a driver might have been hired for atleast five

months. As such, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of

15 2026:HHC:9420

Rs.3,000/- for the month of November, 2008 and Rs.3,000/-, for

the month of December, 2008 and thereafter Rs.5,000/- per

month for three months, i.e. Rs.15,000/-. Thus, the claimant is

held entitlement to a sum of Rs.21,000/-, under the head ‘travel

expenses’.

(c) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES:-

33. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant was

54 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 129 days. During

that period, the claimant might have taken a special diet and

might have engaged services of some attendant, for which, it

would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.100/- per

day, under this head. Thus, the compensation, under this head,

comes to Rs.129x100=Rs.12,900/-

34. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held

entitled to a sum of Rs.2,51,473/- (Rs.9,000/-+ Rs.1,00,000/-+

Rs.99,573/- + Rs.9,000/- + Rs.21,000/- + Rs.12,900/-), along

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

petition till its realization from respondent No.1.

35. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by

modifying the award passed by the learned MACT and the

16 2026:HHC:9420

amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.29,000/- to

Rs.2,51,473/-, 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.

36. However, keeping in view the facts and

circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs.

37. Memo of costs be prepared.

38. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.

Record be sent back.

(Virender Singh)

March 31, 2026 (ps) Judge