( 2025:HHC:20453 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 305 of 2024 Date of decision: 27th June, 2025 New India Assurance Company …Appellant Versus Sultan Singh & others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. O.C. Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.1(a) and 2. Ms. Shrutika Advocate vice Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate for respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 is already ex-parte vide order dated 28.4.2025. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by Insurance Company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (in short the ‘MV Act’) against Award dated 19.7.2024 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalagarh, District Solan (in short ‘the MACT’) in MACT Case No. 29 of 2019 titled Pooja and others vs. Devinder Singh and others, whereby the MACT has awarded compensation amounting to Rs.43,55,028/- along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization in favour of legal heirs mentioned in legal heirs 2 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) certificate Ext.C-1 of deceased Satinder Singh, who had died in motor accident on 3.5.2018 at about 8.43 AM at Billanwali Labana, near Shiv Mandir, Baddi, District Solan on hitting by the truck when he was moving on road. 2 Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that present appeal is confined only to the rate of interest awarded by the MACT and appreciation of evidence related to the income of deceased Satinder Singh as MACT has misread and misinterpreted the salary certificate of deceased Satinder Singh placed on record as Ext.PW1/B wherein total earning of deceased has been reflected as Rs.22,400/- which includes not only other specific components of salary but also Rs.2400/- in the head of ‘Others’. 3 It has been submitted that though, all allowances like HRS, Conveyance allowance, Special allowance, Education allowance, Medical allowance, LTA as well as allowances like telephone, petrol, medical bills and overtime have been reflected in the salary slip specifically, showing that deceased was earning Rs.7200/- as basic, Rs.2000/- as HRS and Rs.10,800/- as Special allowance and nothing against other allowances but with earning of Rs.2400/- against the head of ‘Others’. 4 It has been submitted that when all allowances, as referred supra, were reflected in the salary slip separately then for what purpose amount of Rs.2400/- has been paid as ‘Other’ income in salary certificate of deceased Satinder Singh, is not clarified and thus, the income which 3 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) may be a stray income but not regular income of Satinder Singh cannot be taken into consideration as income of deceased for determining the amount of compensation. 5 Learned counsel for claimants has submitted that in cross examination of PW1 Shiv Kumar who has proved the salary certificate Ext.PW1/A on record, no question has been put with respect to objections now being raised with respect to Rs.2400/- shown to be earned by deceased against the column ‘others’. 6 Learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company has submitted that salary certificate itself is reflecting that Rs.2400/- was not for any allowance or other facility indicated in the salary certificate but for unknown reason, this amount of Rs.2400/- has been reflected in the salary certificate. It has been submitted that it may be carried forward balance of the previous month or any other amount which may not be part of regular salary. 7 No other point has been urged. 8 Accident in reference, death of deceased, employment of deceased, number of dependents/legal heirs, applicability of multiplier, admissibility of 40% income as future income and deduction of 1/3rd towards personal expenses have not been disputed by either party. 9 Perusal of salary certificate and considering the details of amount payable and paid to deceased Satinder in salary certificate Ext.PW1/B and appreciating the submissions made by learned counsel 4 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) for parties, I am of considered opinion that monthly salary of deceased should have been taken after deduction of Rs.2400/- from the total earning reflected as Rs.22,400/- and thus, for the purpose of calculating compensation, monthly salary would be Rs.20,000/-. After addition of 40% towards future income, it would become Rs.20,000/-+Rs.8000/- = Rs.28,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, Rs.9333/- the multiplicant comes to Rs.18,667/- and loss of annual income will be 18667x12=2,24,004/- and after applying multiplier 17, it would become Rs.38,08,068/-. Considering the prevailing rate of interest, it would be appropriate to modify the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum. 10 The amount of compensation payable to dependents/claimants is modified accordingly. The rest award shall remain the same and accordingly, the claimants shall be entitled for Rs.38,08,068/-+Rs.15,000/-+Rs.60,000/-+Rs.15,000/- = Rs.38,98,068/- along with interest thereon @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization thereof. 11 In present case initially, there were three claimants i.e. wife of deceased and father and mother of deceased. Sultan Singh father of deceased Satinder Singh has expired after passing of award. 12 In view of above facts, during pendency of this appeal, an application CMP(M) No. 474 of 2025 was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company for substitution of Sultan Singh through his legal heirs namely Bhupinder Singh (son) and Kalawati Devi (wife). It is apt to record that 5 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) Kalawati is already on record as claimant. Therefore, it was prayed that Bhupinder Singh be brought on record by substituting deceased Sultan Singh. The said application was allowed and Bhupinder Singh was permitted to be brought on record as respondent No.1(a), subject to all just and legal exceptions. 13 In view of aforesaid facts, it has been prayed by learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants that amount of compensation has to be disbursed between Puja Devi, Kalawati Devi and Bhupinder Singh. It has been submitted that as per award passed by the MACT, compensation amount was to be apportioned amongst legal heirs of Satinder Singh mentioned in legal heirs certificate Ext.C-1 in equal apportionment and therefore, Puja Devi and Kalawati Devi and deceased Sultan Singh were entitled for 1/3rd each of award compensation. 14 It has been contended that share of father of Satinder Singh i.e. 1/3rd of the amount of compensation has to be disbursed amongst legal heirs of Sultan Singh i.e. Bhupinder Singh and Kalawati Devi. 15 Aforesaid plea is misconceived for the reason that not only Bhupinder and Kalawati Devi but Puja being wife of pre-deceased son of Sultan Singh is also Class-1 legal heir of Sultan Singh and therefore, in case amount of compensation falling in share of Sultan Singh is to be disbursed amongst his legal heirs then it has to be disbursed in equal shares amongst Puja Devi, Bhupinder and Kalawati Devi. 6 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) 16 However, it is apt to notice that Bhupinder Singh is not one of dependent legal representative/legal heir of deceased Satinder Singh and for that reason only, he was not amongst the original claimants. Claim in his favour is being pleaded as the legal heir of Sultan Singh who was one of the claimants. In case, he would have been dependent legal heir/representative of Satinder, then he would have preferred claim petition or would have joined as claimant in claim petition. Therefore, in my opinion, for the discussion herein-after that Bhupinder Singh is not entitled for any portion of compensation awarded to his dependent legal heirs/representative on account of death of Satinder Singh with clarification that in case there would be other persons i.e. dependent legal heirs/legal representative of deceased Satinder, but have not been arrayed as party, under provisions of MV Act, the MACT/Court was bound to apportion the amount of compensation amongst all dependent legal representatives/legal heirs of deceased Satinder. But, in present case, no other dependent legal heir/legal representative has been brought in the notice of Court. Admittedly, Bhupinder Singh, is not one of dependent legal heirs/legal representative of Satinder. 17 Principle of reversion of estate/property to original source is not unknown to law. Reference in this regard may be made to such provision contained in Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, which read as under:- 7 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) “15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.―(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,― (a) firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband; (b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband; (c) thirdly, upon the mother and father; (d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and (e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1),― (a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and (b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.” 18 Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, in absence of persons eligible to inherit the property, provides reversion of property to the original source of property. 19 In claim cases, like present one, where persons proposed to be brought on record were and are not otherwise eligible to receive 8 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) compensation for death of deceased victim Satinder Singh, the compensation falling in or likely to fall in the share of parent(s) has to be reverted to surviving original claimants. In absence of original claimants, it may devolve upon natural legal heirs of deceased parent(s). In normal circumstances, those who were and are not dependent upon deceased victim, may not be entitled for share in compensation as other dependents legal representatives/legal heirs of deceased Satinder Singh are already on record. There may be cases where widow and/or children of deceased may not be enjoying cordial relations with and supportive role of brothers, sisters of deceased or other legal heirs of parent of deceased/victim. In such cases awarding and disbursing compensation to such brother, sister or persons shall result miscarriage of justice causing unwarranted punishment to actual claimants. 20 In Claim Petition, like present one, either under MACT or Employees Compensation Act or any other similar enactment or statute, where parent(s) is or are also claimants and entitled for compensation on account of death of son/daughter, and children and wife of deceased persons are also claimants and entitled for compensation awarded or to be awarded, the compensation awarded or to be awarded in favour of parent(s), on death of parent(s) has not to be disbursed amongst all legal heirs of parent(s), but has to be disbursed amongst surviving legal heirs/representatives of deceased person for whose death compensation is awarded. Because in such claim cases, compensation is awarded on 9 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) account of dependency upon the deceased. It is not a property or estate inherited by the parent(s) including mother by way of succession or otherwise but is a compensation awarded being dependent legal heirs/representatives of deceased person. Therefore, in such cases, subject to availability of Class-1 legal heirs of deceased-victim, amount of compensation, fallen in share of parent(s) of deceased-victim, is to be disbursed amongst eligible Class-1 legal heirs of deceased-victim on account of whose death compensation is determined and awarded, but not to the Class-1 legal heirs/representatives of deceased claimant parent(s). Parents are claimants in such cases, being dependent on their deceased child, which impliedly means that other children were not looking after them and, therefore, the compensation, is awarded to such parent(s). On death of parent(s), other children of such parent(s) do not deserve any payment of amount out of the compensation payable or paid or awarded to parent(s) on account of their brother or sister, whose eligible Class-1 legal heirs/legal representatives are already available for disbursement/payment of such compensation amount. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that amount of compensation awarded to the parent(s), if not disbursed to and/or utilized by parent(s), has to be remitted back to eligible Class-1 legal heirs/representatives of deceased victim for whose death compensation has been awarded. 10 ( 2025:HHC:20453 ) 21 Therefore, amount of compensation is to be apportioned between two dependent legal heirs i.e. wife of deceased and mother of deceased in equal shares along with proportionate interest thereon. 22 The amount of compensation, as determined supra, shall be released in favour of Puja Devi and Kalawati Devi in equal shares along with proportionate interest by remitting the same in their bank accounts, on supplying the details thereof in the Registry by learned counsel appearing for them. The amount in excess shall be refunded to the appellant/Insurance Company by remitting the same in the bank account of Insurance Company on supply of details of Account Number to the Registry by learned counsel for Insurance Company. Appeal as well as application(s), if any, stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 27th June, 2025(MS)