1 2026:HHC:17778 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

FAO (MV) No. 135 of 2017

Reserved on : 6.5.2026

Decided on : 18.5.2025

Trilok Chand & anr.

.......Appellants

Versus

Narinder Kumar & ors. ...Respondents

Coram

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

Whether approved for reporting?

1

yes

__________________________________________________________________

For the appellants: Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Tamanna

Sharma, Advocate.

For the respondents: None for respondents No. 1 and

2.

Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior

Advocate with Ms. Soma Thakur,

Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

Virender Singh, Judge

The appellants, being dis-satisfied with the award

dated 2.1.2017, passed by the Court of learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. (hereinafter referred to

as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C.P. No. 6 of 2015, titled as, ‘Tarlok

1

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

2 2026:HHC:17778 

Chand versus Narinder Kumar & ors.’, have preferred the

present appeal.

2. By way of award dated 2.1.2017, the learned

Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants

by awarding a sum of Rs. 8,58,400/-, as compensation, along

with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the

petition, till deposit. The ultimate liability has been fastened

upon respondent No. 3, insurer of truck No. PB-03R-9439.

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:-

The claimants, being unfortunate parents of Ajay

Kumar, had 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 of Ajay Kumar,

who expired in a roadside accident, involving vehicle No. PB-

03R-9439, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’),

on 25.10.2014, being owned by respondent No. 2 and driven

by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner. The

said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3.

3 2026:HHC:17778 

4.1 According to the claimants, deceased Ajay Kumar,

at the time of accident, was 20 years of age and was earning

Rs. 9000/- per month, as he was running a street vending

cart at Laddowal, District Ludhiana, Punjab.

4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by the

claimants that on 24.10.2014, their son deceased Ajay

Kumar, alongwith one Manpreet Singh, was returning back

on his motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-12T-1991,

after re-fueling the same at Laddowal Petrol Pump. When, he

was moving towards his street vending cart, then, at about

10:30 p.m., the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent

No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle of

the deceased. Consequently, Ajay Kumar and Manpreet Singh

sustained injuries. Ajay Kumar was taken to L.M. Civil

Hospital, Ludhiana, where he was declared to be brought

dead. His post-mortem examination was conducted and

information was given to Police of Police Station, Laddowal,

District Ludhiana and FIR No. 181 of 2014, dated

25.10.2014, was registered under Sections 279, 337, 338,

304-A and 427 IPC, with Police Station, Laddowal, District

Ludhiana, Pb. The accident in question has solely been

attributed to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1.

4 2026:HHC:17778 

4.3 The claimants have pleaded about their bright

past and bleak future and sought compensation, as claimed

in the petition.

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

contested by the respondents, by filing reply(ies).

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed joint reply, in

which, they have taken preliminary objections by pleading

that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties,

as the driver, owner and the insurer of Motorcycle No. HP-

12T-1991 have not been impleaded as parties in the petition,

and the accident in question had taken place due to rash and

negligent driving of the deceased himself.

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

mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, factum of

accident has not been disputed, but the same has been

attributed to negligence of the rider of the motorcycle.

8. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle

has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections,

qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable.

According to the Insurance Company, the driver of the

offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving

license, at the time of accident. As such, the vehicle is stated

5 2026:HHC:17778 

to be driven, in violation of the terms and conditions of the

Insurance Policy.

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

mainly been denied for want of knowledge. Thus, the

respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

10. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been

made by the respondents to dismiss the claim petition.

11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following

issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated

5.2.2016:-

1. Whether deceased Ajay Kumar died due to

accident dated 24.10.2014 because of rash and

negligent driving by respondent No.1 of vehicle

bearing registration No.PB-03R-9439, as alleged?

OPP.

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

petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how

much and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of

necessary parties, as alleged? OPR

4. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?

OPR-3

5. Whether the driver of vehicle bearing registration

No. PB-03R-9439 was not holding valid and effective

driving licence at the time of accident. If so its

effect? OPR3

6. Whether vehicle bearing registration No. PB- 03R-

9439 was being driven at the relevant time in

violation of the terms and conditions of insurance

policy and provisions of M.V. Act as alleged? OPR-3.

7. Relief

6 2026:HHC:17778 

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

adduce evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the

parties, the claim petition was allowed, as referred to above.

13. In the present case, neither the owner nor driver,

nor the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal. Only

the claimants, being dis-satisfied with the award, have

preferred the present appeal, with a prayer to enhance the

amount of compensation on the ground that the learned

Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of deceased Ajay

Kumar, during his lifetime, as Rs. 6000/- per month,

whereas, it has been proved that he was earning a sum of Rs.

9000/- per month, at the relevant time. In this regard, the

claimants have relied upon the evidence of PW-3 Tarlok

Chand and PW-4 Vipan Kumar.

14. According to the claimants, addition of 30% in the

income of Ajay Kumar has not been given on account of

future prospects and the fact that the deceased was the sole

bread earner of his family, has not been considered by the

learned Tribunal.

15. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala,

learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Tamanna Sharma,

Advocate, has prayed that amount of compensation may

kindly be enhanced.

7 2026:HHC:17778 

16. The prayer, so made, has been opposed by Ms.

Devyani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by

Ms.Soma Thakur, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 3

(Insurance Company) on the ground that learned Tribunal

has already awarded just compensation and the award

passed by the learned Tribunal, does not require any

interference, by this Court.

17. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been

made to dismiss the appeal.

18. In this case, neither owner, nor driver nor

Insurance Company has assailed the award passed by the

learned Tribunal. In such situation, the only question, which

arises for determination, before this Court, is with regard to

the fact as to whether amount of compensation, which has

been awarded to the claimants, by the learned Tribunal, falls

within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not?

19. 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/Tribunal should be to provide “just compensation”.

The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced

as under:-

8 2026:HHC:17778 

“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 deter-

mined 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 fac-

tors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determin-

ing the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act en-

joins 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 par-

ties. The benefits thereof are available only to the per-

sons 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)

20. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sushila & Others versus Sudhakar &

Another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343. Relevant paragraphs 19

and 20 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:-

“19.In our considered opinion, although the High

Court had enhanced the compensation, it was on the

lower side. The cardinal principle of awarding

compensation in the cases of motor accidents is to

provide a “just compensation” to the victim and/or the

distressed dependents of the deceased. The term “just”

implies that the compensation must be fair, reasonable,

and equitable as per the applicable legal standards. The

compensation should not be too meagre, nor should it

be excessive. The sole foundation of providing monetary

compensation is to make efforts to put the dependents

of the deceased at the same financial position that they

9 2026:HHC:17778 

were in, had the accident not occurred. [See also:

Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and

another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65; National

Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors, reported

in (2008) 2 SCC 763; and Divisional Controller, KSRTC

vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another, reported in (2003) 7

SCC 197]

20) Thus, in the light of the settled principle that the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as

“M.V. Act”) is a beneficial legislation and the

compensation should be just and equitable, let us deal

with the issues for determination in the present appeal.”

21. Being guided by the above decisions of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, this Court would proceed further to

determine as to whether the amount of compensation

awarded by the learned MACT to the claimants falls within

the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not?

22. As per the claim petition, age of deceased Ajay

Kumar, at the time of death, was 20 years. Claimant No. 1

Tarlok Chand (father of Ajay Kumar), when, appeared in

witness box, has also disclosed the age of his son as 20 years,

at the relevant time. Even, in the post-mortem report, Ext.

PW1/A, age of deceased Ajay Kumar has been mentioned as

20 years. In the absence of any evidence, contrary to the

same with respect to the age of deceased Ajay Kumar, the

learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age of Ajay Kumar as

20 years, at the time of his death.

10 2026:HHC:17778 

23. Now, the question, which arises for determination

before this Court, is with regard to income of Ajay Kumar at

the time of his death, as his income has been pleaded to be

Rs. 9000/- per month, at the relevant time.

24. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by the

claimants that the deceased was running a street vending

cart at Laddowal, District Ludhiana, under the name and

style ‘Vipan Fast Food’.

25. In the cross-examination of PW-3, when, a

suggestion was put to him that his son was not earning

anything, he has voluntarily stated that his son was earning a

sum of Rs. 9000/- per month.

26. PW-4 Vipan Kumar has also deposed on the

similar lines. He has also deposed that he used to pay a sum

of Rs. 9000/- per month to deceased Ajay Kumar, as salary.

27. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of

deceased Ajay Kumar, during his lifetime, as Rs. 6000/- per

month. Although, no documentary evidence has been

adduced by the claimants to prove the income of deceased

Ajay Kumar, during his lifetime, but, the oral evidence and

lengthy cross-examination conducted by learned counsel for

the respondents, cannot be ignored to conclude that deceased

Ajay Kumar was earning only a sum of Rs. 6000/- per month,

11 2026:HHC:17778 

during his lifetime. Thus, the learned Tribunal has fallen into

error by deducting the income of Ajay Kumar as Rs. 6000/-

per month, whereas, the same has been proved to be Rs.

9000/- per month, as law does not differentiate between the

oral evidence and the documentary evidence.

28. The age of deceased Ajay Kumar has been proved

to be 20 years at the time of his death. The Hon’ble Supreme

Court in a case titled as ‘National Insurance Company

Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others’, reported in (2017)

16 Supreme Court Cases 680 has mandated that in case, the

deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition

of 40% of the established income should be warranted where

the deceased is below the age of 40 years. Relevant

paragraphs 52, 59.3, 59.4, 59.5, 59.7 and 59.8 of the

judgment are reproduced as under:

“52. As far as the conventional heads are concerned, we

find it difficult to agree with the view expressed in Rajesh. It

has granted Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.

1,00,000/- loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards

loss of care and guidance for minor children. The head

relating to loss of care and minor children does not exist.

Though Rajesh refers to Santosh Devi, it does not seem to

follow the same. The conventional and traditional heads,

needless to say, cannot be determined on percentage basis

because that would not be an acceptable criterion. Unlike

determination of income, the said heads have to be

quantified. Any quantification must have a reasonable

12 2026:HHC:17778 

foundation. There can be no dispute over the fact that price

index, fall in bank interest, escalation of rates in many a

field have to be noticed. The court cannot remain oblivious

to the same. There has been a thumb rule in this aspect.

Otherwise, there will be extreme difficulty in determination

of the same and unless the thumb rule is applied, there will

be immense variation lacking any kind of consistency as a

consequence of which, the orders passed by the tribunals

and courts are likely to be unguided. Therefore, we think it

seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that

reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of

estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be

Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively.

The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable

principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or

quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that

the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on

percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement

should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We

are disposed to hold so because that will bring in

consistency in respect of those heads.

XXX XXX XXX

59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of

actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future

prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and

was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The

addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased

was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was

between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be

15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax.

59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed

salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should

be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40

years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between

the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was

between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the

13 2026:HHC:17778 

necessary method of computation. The established income

means the income minus the tax component.

59.5 For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction

for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the

courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla

Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.

59.7 The age of the deceased should be the basis for

applying the multiplier.

59.8 Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely,

loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses

should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/-

respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at

the rate of 10% in every three years.”

29. Being guided by the above decision, the next

question for determination, before this Court, is about the

addition, which is liable to be given on the income of deceased

Ajay Kumar, on account of his future prospects. Admittedly,

the deceased was self-employed, as such, 40% increase is

liable to be added in the monthly income of deceased. Thus,

his monthly income comes to Rs. 9000/-+ Rs. 3600/- i.e.

40% of Rs.9000/-= Rs. 12,600/- per month.

30. Deceased Ajay Kumar was bachelor at the time of

his death, as such, 50% of the amount out of his established

income, is liable to be deducted. Thus, his contribution

towards the family comes to Rs. 6,300/-, i.e. Rs. 12,600-50%

of 12,600/-.

14 2026:HHC:17778 

31. The learned trial Court, in the present case, has

wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘13’. The multiplier has been

adopted by the learned Tribunal on the basis of age of the

claimants. The learned Tribunal has fallen into an error, as

age of the deceased should be the basis of applying the

multiplier, as held in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra).

32. In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Sarla Verma (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport

Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121,

multiplier of 18 is required to be applied, in the present case.

33. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has also

awarded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under the head ‘Funeral and

cost of litigation’, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the head

‘Loss of Estate’ and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, under the head

of ‘Loss of expectations of life’. The said findings are not

sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of decision of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), as the

claimants are held entitled for a fixed amount of Rs.

15,000/- each, under the heads ‘Loss of estate’ and

‘Funeral expenses’ and a sum of Rs. 40,000/- under the head

‘loss of consortium’. In the aforesaid judgment, it has been

mandated that the amount under the aforesaid heads is liable

to be enhanced @ 10% after every three years.

15 2026:HHC:17778 

34. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court

in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram

@ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, both the

claimants are also entitled to the compensation, under the

head ‘loss of consortium’.

35. A feeble attempt has also been made by learned

Senior counsel appearing for the claimants by pleading that

apart from the claimants, deceased Ajay Kumar has one

minor brother and two minor sisters. PW-3, when, appeared

in witness box has deposed that his minor son is studying in

8

th

standard and daughter is studying in 10

th

standard,

whereas, another daughter has attained majority. However, in

the absence of any documentary proof, or any attempt made

by the claimants to implead them as parties, in the present

case, his bald statement cannot be accepted, as gospel truth.

36. In view of above, the entitlement of the claimants,

for which, they are held entitled, is assessed, as under:-

1.Loss of contribution = Rs.6300 x 12x 18= Rs.

13,60,800/-

2.Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 4500/-=Rs.

19,500/-

3.Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 4500/-

= Rs. 19,500/-

4.Loss of consortium = Rs.40,000x2=Rs.80,000/-

+ Rs. 24,000/-= Rs. 1,04,000/-

16 2026:HHC:17778 

Total = Rs.13,60,800+19,500+19,500+

Rs.1,04,000 = Rs. 15,03,800/-.

37. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by

the learned Tribunal is liable to be enhanced.

38. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9%

per annum, which is liable to be reduced. As such,

claimants are held entitled to interest @ 7.5%.

39. In view of above, the present appeal is allowed by

enhancing the compensation amount. The claimants are

held entitled for the amount of Rs. 15,03,800/-, along with

interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of petition till the

realization of amount. The award passed by the learned

Tribunal is modified and enhanced, in the above terms. The

amount of compensation is apportioned amongst the

claimants, in equal shares. The liability has rightly been

fastened upon the Insurance Company.

40. Memo of costs be prepared.

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

42.Record be sent back.

(Virender Singh)

18.5.2026 Judge

(kalpana)

17 2026:HHC:17778