1 2025:HHC:23688 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 555 of 2018 Reserved on: 02.07.2025 Decided on: 22.07.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Kailash Prasad Sah and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Rajat Awasthy, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Satyen Vaidya, Judge This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “The Act”) against Award dated 06.08.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Camp at Nalagarh in Claim Petition No. 04-NL/2 of 2015, whereby respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2025:HHC:23688 ‘Claimant’) has been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.31,80,800/- alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of award amount. 2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident involving Truck No. HP-12C-9072. The vehicle involved in the accident was owned by respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Owner’) and driven by respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Driver’). The vehicle at the time of accident was insured by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Insurer’). 3. As per claimant, he was working as Supervisor with M/s Charming Intex, Village Katha, Tehsil Baddi, District Solan, H.P. and was earning monthly salary of Rs. 17,500/-. 4. Claimant alleged that on 20.06.2014 at about 9.30 AM, when he was on the pillion of Motorcycle bearing registration No. HP-12C-1447, at place Sikka Hotel Chowk, Baddi, the truck No. HP-12C-9072 came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle and as a result thereof, the motorcycle alongwith claimant were dragged to a considerable distance. The 3 2025:HHC:23688 front tyre of the truck crushed the leg of the claimant. The claimant suffered various other serious injuries. 5. In the first instance, the claimant was taken to Gupta Hospital, Baddi from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh. As per the claimant, he remained indoor patient in PGI Chandigarh w.e.f. 20.06.2014 to 30.06.2014 and during this period, he had to undergo a brain surgery besides amputation of his leg. 6. The cause of accident was attributed to the driver of the offending truck. 7. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-. 8. The owner and driver filed their joint reply. They disclosed that the vehicle at the time of accident was insured by the insurer with a valid policy of insurance effective from 03.10.2013 to 02.10.2014. The allegation of accident being caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver was denied. 9. The insurer filed its separate reply. In the reply, the insurer had submitted that the insured had neither placed on record the policy particulars in respect of the vehicle No. HP- 12A-9072 nor had supplied the same to the insurer. Thus, in 4 2025:HHC:23688 absence of the particulars of the insurance policy, the insurer had reserved its right to file amended reply. Similarly, a plea was raised with respect to non-supply of particulars of driving licence of the driver. However, even in absence of such particulars, an objection was raised that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence. 10. Further, it was stated by the insurer that the owner and driver had also not placed on record copy of Registration Certificate, Permit and Fitness Certificate etc. and had not supplied such documents to the insurer. Again, in absence of the documents, an objection was raised that the vehicle No. HP- 12A-9072 was not registered at the time of accident. 11. An objection as to non-joinder of necessary parties was also raised by the insurer. As per insurer, the owner and insurer of motor cycle No. HP-12C-1447 were the necessary parties. 12. All other contents of the claim petition were denied in generality. 13. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether on the morning of 26.06.2014 around 9.30 a.m. at place bear Sikka Hotel Chowk, Baddi, District Solan, H.P. on the public highway, respondent No.2 was driving 5 2025:HHC:23688 truck bearing No. HP-12C-9072 rashly and negligently which resulted in causing multiple injuries to the petitioner when the motorcycle bearing No. HP-12C-1447 being driven by petitioner was knocked down by the aforesaid truck, as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 4. Whether the aforesaid truck was being driven in violation of terms of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the petition of the petitioner is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3. 6. Relief. 14. Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas, all other issues were decided in negative. Resultantly, the petition was allowed and the claimant has been held entitled to compensation of Rs.31,80,800/- along with interest as noticed above. 15. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was working as Supervisor with M/s Charming Intex Pvt. Ltd. and was being paid salary of Rs.17,500/- per month. Considering the disability certificate placed on record by the claimant, learned Tribunal held that the claimant had suffered disability to the tune of 80%. Thus, 80% of Rs.17,500/- was taken as 14,000/- and on multiplication of said amount with 12 months, the annual loss of income was assessed at 6 2025:HHC:23688 Rs.1,68,000/-. The claimant was found to be 29 years old at the time of accident and hence, the multiplier of 17 was applied. Accordingly, the total loss of future income was assessed at Rs.28,56,000/-. In addition, the following amounts were awarded under the heads: Sr.No. Heads Calculation(Rs.) a. Future loss of income 28,56,000/- b. Transportation charges (as is evident from Ex.P-108 to Ex.P- 112) 9,200/- c. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- d. Special diet and attendant charges 10,000/- e. Future discomfort and inconvenience 50,000/- f. Medical bills (as is evident from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-107) 2,05,514/- Total: 31,80,714/- 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 17. According to Sh. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the insurer/ appellant the impugned award was bad in law on the grounds firstly that the liability to satisfy the award was wrongly fastened upon the insurer despite clear proof of breach of terms and conditions of the policy and secondly, the quantum 7 2025:HHC:23688 of compensation was highly excessive and was not warranted by the material on record. 18. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the insurer that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven without any route permit and such fact was duly proved on record by contents of documents Ex. RX-4. By placing reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amrit Paul Singh and another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others (2018) 7 SCC 558, it was submitted that plying of transport vehicle without valid permit was a fundamental breach of the policy and thus, the insurer cannot be held liable. 19. Sh. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel also placed reliance on the provisions of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act which mandates the route permit for transport vehicles. 20. On the other hand, Sh. J. L. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Advocate representing the owner and driver would contend that the insurer cannot be allowed to raise any ground in the appeal without there being a specific plea or objection to that effect raised before the learned Tribunal. The attention of the Court 8 2025:HHC:23688 was drawn to the contents of preliminary objection No.4 in the reply filed by the insurer before learned Tribunal: “4. That the respondent No.1 and 2 have neither placed on record the copy of RC, permit, if any, and fitness certificate, driving licence etc. nor has supplied the same to the replying respondent till date and in the absence of same it is submitted that the vehicle No. HP-12A-9072 was not validly registered at the time of aforesaid accident.” 21. He submitted that the reply filed by the insurer was with respect to vehicle No. HP-12A-9072, whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was registered with registration No. HP- 12C-9072. He further stated that in the entire reply there was no specific objection that the vehicle was being plied without route permit. According to Mr. J.L. Bhardwaj, what was stated in the reply was that the owner and driver had not placed on record copy of R.C. and route permit. Their specific objection was with respect to non-registration of the vehicle. He further submitted that the insurer otherwise has failed to prove the breach as alleged by it. 22. By placing reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. V. Nagaraju vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Officer, Hassan (1996) 4 SCC 647, Sh. J.L. Bhardwaj, submitted that even if assumingly the 9 2025:HHC:23688 vehicle was plied without permit, it cannot be said that the said reason had attribution in occurrence of accident in any manner. He further submitted that the insurer had otherwise also not taken a specific plea in the reply nor was any specific issue to that effect framed and hence, the insurer cannot be allowed at appellate stage to make out or to raise a new case. 23. I have already noticed in earlier part of this judgment the contents of para-4 of the preliminary objection. As per the insurer, since the copies of registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate were not supplied to it by the owner, an objection as to validity of registration of the vehicle was being taken. The insurer has not amended its reply even after receipt of the documents and no specific objection has been taken that the vehicle did not have the permit at the time of accident. The issue No.4 was framed in general terms, without specifying as to what was the violation of the terms of insurance policy. In any case, such issue has to be read in consonance with the objections raised by the insurer in the reply before the learned Tribunal and the objections were that the vehicle was not insured and it was not validly registered. 10 2025:HHC:23688 24. Now, coming to the documents Ext.Rx-4 on which the insurer has placed reliance, only a soft copy of electronic record allegedly signed by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Solan has been tendered in evidence. Neither the Secretary RTA Solan has been examined as witness to prove his signatures nor any other evidence has been led for the purpose. Ext.RX-4 cannot be said to be the original document. Merely because the document has been exhibited, its contents cannot be said to have been automatically proved. In absence of such proof, the document cannot be read in evidence. 25. There is no other evidence to support the contention of the insurer, hence, there is no material on record from which inference can be drawn about the vehicle being plied at the time of accident without valid permit. 26. Learned counsel for the insurer while assailing the quantum of compensation to be excessive has pointed out that the learned Tribunal had held the monthly salary of claimant as Rs.17,500/- merely on assumption and presumption. Referring to the statement of PW-3, who was examined by the claimant to prove the factum of his employment and salary, it has been contended that the document exhibited in the statement of said 11 2025:HHC:23688 witness have not been proved in accordance with law. It has been contended that not only the certificate Ext.PW-3/B was undated it was also not known as to who had issued the said certificate. Similarly, the register showing the attendance of the workers has also been challenged on the ground that neither the scribe of the document was produced nor it was shown as to under whose authority it was prepared. 27. As per learned counsel for the insurer, in absence of any documented income of the claimant, learned Tribunal was obliged to rely upon the rate of minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act during the relevant year. At the time of hearing, he placed a copy of notification of the minimum wages fixed during the year 2014 with a purpose to show that the wage of skilled worker at that point of time was quite less than what was claimed by the claimant. 28. It has also been contended that the assessment of disability of claimant by learned Tribunal at 80% was again without any evidence. The disability certificate Mark ‘X’ placed by the claimant on record was not proved in accordance with law. The authority which had issued the certificate had not been examined as a witness. 12 2025:HHC:23688 29. Indisputably, the disability certificate has not been proved by the claimant in accordance with law, hence, it cannot be read in evidence. However, it cannot be ignored that the claimant while appearing as a witness has stated on oath that after being injured in the accident, he was treated in PGI, Chandigarh and there he was operated upon for brain and his leg was also amputated. He further stated that due to amputation of leg and injuries suffered in the accident, he was not able to work anymore. 30. PW-3, may not have been able to prove the document i.e. the attendance register and certificate of employment and salary of claimant, but he had deposed on oath that claimant was working as a supervisor with M/s Charming Intex Pvt. Ltd.. 31. The above noted statements of claimant and PW-3 have remained unchallenged in cross-examination. That being so, what has been proved is that the claimant at the time of accident, was working as a supervisor and his leg had been amputated on account of injuries suffered in the accident. 32. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and another (2011) SCC 343, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principle that the Tribunal while assessing the compensation has to find 13 2025:HHC:23688 the functional disability as a parameter rather than the physical disability. Thus, even though the claimant had not been able to prove his physical disability to the extent of 80%, the notice can be taken of the fact that he was working as a supervisor in an industrial unit and his working capacity and consequently earning capacity would considerably be lessened. 33. The work of supervisor involves complete physical involvement for long working hours. With one leg amputated petitioner definitely must have lost physical strength and endurance to a large extent. In addition, the petitioner cannot be expected to keep the same mental agility, energy and drive with the nature and extent of trauma suffered by him. 34. Thus, keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances, the functional disability of claimant, cannot be said to be less than 80%. 35. Coming to the loss of income suffered by the claimant, even by taking into consideration the rates fixed under the Minimum Wages Act in the year 2014, a highly skilled workman in an establishment with manufacturing process was entitled to daily wages of Rs.274.50. By applying the said standard, the monthly income of claimant can be conveniently assessed at 14 2025:HHC:23688 Rs.8265/- rounded to Rs.8300/-. The claimant was only 29 years of age at the time of accident. It cannot be denied that the minimum wages are fixed for limited hours of working, whereas, the workman gets extra remuneration for the extra hour work. Keeping the age of the claimant, his working capacity for extra hours, cannot be undermined and by taking a conservative approximation minimum of 20% addition to his wages in accordance with the Minimum Wages Act can be made for work during extra hours. Thus, the monthly wages of the claimant can be easily said to be 9960 rounded off to Rs.10,000/-. The claimant would be entitled to the addition of 40% on account of incremental increase and future prospects and in this manner, his income would be Rs.14,000/- per month. If the loss of earning capacity is taken to be 80%, then the loss of his monthly income will not be less than Rs.11,200/-. The multiplier of 17 has rightly been applied. Hence, his total loss of future income will be Rs.11200x12x17 = Rs.22,84,800/-. 36. The compensation awarded to claimant under other heads cannot be said unreasonable and requires no interference. 37. In result, the claimant is held entitled to the following amounts: 15 2025:HHC:23688 Sr.No. Heads Calculation(Rs.) a. Future loss of income 22,84,800/- b. Transportation charges (as is evident from Ex.P-108 to Ex.P- 112) 9,200/- c. Pain and sufferings 50,000/- d. Special diet and attendant charges 10,000/- e. Future discomfort and inconvenience 50,000/- f. Medical bills (as is evident from Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-107) 2,05,514/- Total: 26,09,514/- 38. In addition, the claimant shall be entitled to interest as awarded by learned Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition till its deposit. 39. The liability to satisfy the award shall be that of the insurer. 40. In result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 06.08.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. Camp at Nalagarh in Claim Petition No. 04-NL/2 of 2015, is modified to the extent as detailed hereinabove. 41. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any. 22nd July 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge