2025:HHC:39274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 409 of 2017 Date of decision: 19.11.2025. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant versus Rakesh Kumar & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Dheeraj K. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Tarun K. Bragta, Advocate, vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 5 to 7. Satyen Vaidya, Judge (oral): This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ‘Act’) against the award dated 01.07.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II) Kangra at Dharmashala (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in MACP No. 8- 1/II/2013/2011. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that a claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the Act by respondents No. 1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) for grant of compensation on account of death of their father Suram Singh in a motor accident. 3. It was alleged that on 20.12.2010, deceased Suram Singh was travelling on his bicycle from village Gagwal to village Budhabar. He was hit by Bus No. HP-38- 7659, as the result thereof, injuries were caused, which had resulted in the death of Suram Singh on 19.04.2011. 4. The cause of accident was attributed to the driver of Bus No. HP-38-7659. It was alleged that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner. 5. The deceased was stated to be working as a scrap dealer. His income was claimed as Rs. 15,000/- per month. 6. The offending Bus was owned by respondent No.4 herein, which was insured with appellant/insurer. FIR No. 324 of 2010 was stated to be registered in respect of the accident against the driver of the bus. -3- 7. The claim petition was contested by the owner and driver of the bus by denying the accident. It was alleged that a false report had been lodged with the police against the driver of the bus. In alternative, the cause of accident was denied to be by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. 8. The appellant/insurer filed its separate reply and raised the objection as to the violation of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. It was alleged that the driver of the bus was not holding the valid driving license at the time of accident. The rest of the averments made in the claim petition were also denied in generality. 9. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether on 20.12.2010 at 8.00 p.m. at Gagwal respondent No.2 was driving bus No.HP-38- 7659 in a rash and negligent manner and caused death of Suram Singh? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP -4- 3. Whether the driver of bus No. HP-38-7659 was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether the bus was being driven without registration-cum-fitness certificate and route permit? OPR 5. Relief.” 10. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative whereas, all other issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was allowed and the claimants have been held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 8,60,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization of the amount. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 12. Mr. P.S. Chandel, leaned counsel for the appellant/insurer has contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded excess compensation. He alleged that the income of the deceased has been assessed by the learned Tribunal at Rs. 6,000/- per month without any basis. It is also his contention that the age of the deceased was wrongly considered as forty years, whereas there was no -5- legal evidence to prove such fact. He further submitted that deduction on account of personal expenses has wrongly been done at the rate of 1/4th whereas, it had to be 1/3rd, as there were three legal representatives. 13. The impugned award reveals that for arriving at a conclusion as to the monthly income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal had adverted to guesswork. No doubt, where the income of deceased or a victim in a claim for compensation is not documented, some amount of guesswork is permissible, however, it has to be on realistic parameters. In such situation, reference can be made to the minimum wages fixed by the State Government under the Minimum Wages Act. Taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed in the year 2008 for higher skilled workmen, the income earned by the deceased can reasonably be taken at Rs. 4500/- per months. 14. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 40 years on the basis of entry to that effect made in the post mortem report. However, while answering the question in the cross-examination, PW-2 (one of the claimants) had categorically stated that the age -6- of the deceased at the time of accident was 48 years. This part of the evidence has clearly been ignored by the learned Tribunal. Even otherwise, PW-2 had declared his age as 27 years at the time of examination of this witness in the year 2015. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that he was studying in school when his father had died. Thus, the statement of PW-2 was discrepant and for such reason, the reliance placed by the learned Tribunal on post mortem report for assessing the age of the deceased cannot be countenanced. Keeping in view the admission made by PW-2 in his cross-examination, the age of deceased can be taken as 48 years. 15. The claim petition was filed by five legal representatives of deceased including his wife and mother, who died subsequently and were deleted from the array of the parties. Thus, the deceased had five legal representatives at the time of death and as such, the deduction on account of personal expenses has rightly been calculated by the learned Tribunal at the rate of 1/4th of monthly income. -7- 16. Since the age of the deceased has been held to be 48 years at the time of death, the relevant multiplier as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 721 will be 13. 17. In light of what has been discussed above, the compensation awarded on account of loss of dependency to the claimants has to be recalculated. The claimants will be entitled to addition of 25% on the monthly income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. Thus, the total monthly income of the deceased can be considered at Rs. 6000/-. After making deduction of 1/4th on account of personal expenses, the monthly loss of dependency will be at Rs. 4,500/-. By application of multiplier of 13, the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 4,500 x 12 x 13 = Rs. 7,02,000/- 18. It has been established that claimant No.3 i.e. the daughter of deceased was married and settled in her matrimonial home. Therefore, she cannot be said to be a dependent upon the deceased. That being so, she will not be entitled to any compensation on account of loss of -8- consortium, whereas other two claimants i.e. Rakesh Kumar and Sunil Kumar will be entitled under the said head. In addition, the claimants will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 15,000/- under the head loss of estate and Rs. 15,000/- under the head funeral charges. However, in terms of judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680, the claimants shall be entitled to enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years on the amount of compensation awarded under conservative heads. Thus, Rs. 21,000/- is liable to be added under this head. On recalculation of the compensation, payable to the claimants figures as under:- 1 Loss of dependency Rs. 7,02,000/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 80,000/- 3. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- 4. Funeral charges Rs. 15,000/- 5. Enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years. Rs. 21,000/- Total Rs. 8, 33,000/- -9- In addition, the claimants will be entitled to interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 19. In result, the appeal is partly allowed. Award dated 01.07.2017, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II) Kangra at Dharmashala (for short the ‘Tribunal’) in MACP No. 8-I/II/2013/2011 is modified to the extent, as detailed above. 20. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 19th November, 2025 Judge (kck)