2025:HHC:23001 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO Nos. 521 & 562 of 2019 Reserved on: 27.6.2025 Date of decision: 16.07.2025. 1. FAO No. 521 of 2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Meera Kanwar & others. …Respondents. 2. FAO No. 562 of 2019 National Insurance Co. Ltd. ….Appellant Versus Meera Kanwar & others ….Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1Yes For the appellants  : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nisha, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Advocate,   for   respondent   No.1   in FAO   No.   521   of   2019   and   for respondents No.  1 and 2 in  FAO No. 562 of 2019. Ms. Subh   Mahajan,   Advocate,   for respondent No.2 in FAO No. 521 of 2019   and   for   respondent   No.3   in FAO No. 562 of 2019. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ­2­ Mr. Y.P.   Sood,   Advocate,   for respondent No.5 in FAO No. 521 of 2019   and   for   respondent   No.6   in FAO No. 562 of 2019 Mr. Praneet   Gupta,   Advocate,   for respondent No.6 in FAO No. 521 of 2019 and for respondent No. 7 in FAO No. 562 of 2019. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: Both these appeals were heard together and are being   decided   by   a   common   judgment   as   common questions of facts and law are involved. 2. On the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd August, 2014, an accident took place at Chandigarh involving Volvo Bus   No.   HP­63­5729   and   Swift   Car   No.   HP­03T­4103. There was a collision between both the vehicles. 3. In   the   said   accident   respondent   No.1   Meera Kanwar   received   personal   injuries   and   her   daughter Deepali Kanwar lost her life. Both were the occupants of Volvo Bus No. HP­63­5729. 4. MACT No. 38­D/11/14 was the claim petition filed   by   Meera   Kanwar   for   compensation   on   account   of injuries and disablement suffered by her and MACT No. ­3­ 37­D/11/14 was filed by Meera Kanwar and her husband Vinod Kumar, seeking compensation on account of death of their daughter Deepali Kanwar. 5. Learned   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal­IV, Kangra   at   Dharmshala   (for   short   the   ‘Tribunal’)   has decided   both   the   claim   petitions  vide  separate   awards dated 30.8.2019. In MACT No. 38­D/11/14 compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/­ with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization has been awarded and in MACT No. 37­D/11/14 a sum of Rs. 11,07,456/­   with   simple   interest   at   the   rate   of   9%   per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization has been awarded to Meera Kanwar and her husband Vinod Kumar. 6. The liability to satisfy both the awards has been fastened upon the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer of Volvo Bus No. HP­63­5729. The learned Tribunal has held the respondent HRTC, Satish Sehrawat and Surender Singh being the hirer, owner and driver   of   Bus   No.   HP­63­5729   liable   to   pay   the ­4­ compensation in both the cases and since the said bus was insured by the appellant Insurance Company, it has been directed to discharge the liability. 7. In both the appeals, the impugned awards have been challenged to the extent of the findings of learned Tribunal indicting Surender Singh, the driver of bus for causing accident by his rash and negligent driving. 8. In FAO NO. 562 of 2019 arising from MACT No. 37­D/11/14,   additional   challenge   to   the   quantum   of compensation has also been raised. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 10. In claim petitions, it was specifically alleged that the   accident   had   taken   place   on   account   of   rash   and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. HP­63­5729 and driver   of   Swift   Car   No.   HP­03T­4103. In   addition, petitioner   Meera   Kanwar   had   examined   herself   as   a witness and in her deposition had consistently maintained the same stand that the accident had been caused by rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. She ­5­ stated   that   on   the   intervening   night   of   22nd  and   23rd August, 2014, she along with her daughter was travelling in Volvo Bus No. HP­63­5729 from Dharmshala to Delhi. They were occupying seat Nos. 15 and 16. The bus was being driven rashly. At about 2.00 AM, when the bus was crossing   Chandigarh   City,   at   a   road   junction,   the   bus collided   with   the   Car   No.   HP­03T­4103. In   the   said accident, she along with her daughter received injuries, which resulted in 10% permanent disablement of petitioner Meera Kanwar and death of her daughter Deepali Kanwar. 11. The driver of the bus Surender Singh has also been examined as a witness. While making the deposition, this witness has stated that he was not at fault and the entire fault was that of the driver of the car. He narrated that when the bus had reached the light point of Sector­49, Chandigarh at about 1.45. AM a Car bearing HP­03T­4103 came from the divider point of driver side in a high speed and   directly   struck   against   the   bus   on   the   driver   side behind   the   front   tyre. He   further   stated   that   the   FIR ­6­ registered against him was based on false facts in order to save the driver of the car. 12. Another witness is Gopal Krishan, an official of appellant Insurance Company. Though, he was not an eye witness to the accident but he deposed that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and the basis of his deposition was the contents of a DVD containing CCTV footage of the spot of accident exhibited on record as RW2/D.  According to this witness, the CCTV footage in a DVD was provided to the appellant company by the police in response to information sought under the RTI Act. 13. No other witness was examined by either of the parties with respect to the cause of accident. Noticeably, the driver and other occupants of the car have died. None from   the   other   occupants   of   the   bus   was   examined   as witness. 14. FIR Ext. PW3/A was registered at Police Station, Sector­34, Chandigarh. Its contents reveal that the FIR was registered on the basis of information provided by the ­7­ police officials, who were on patrol duty. None of these police officials have also been examined as a witness. 15. Learned Tribunal has returned the findings on the issue regarding cause of accident in following terms: ­ “31. Thus, while weighing and balancing the evidence of the respondents with the evidence of the petitioners, the documentary and oral evidence of the respondents No.1 to 4 stands negatived, negated, rebutted, dislodged and displaced   and   the   evidence   of   the   petitioner  goes   to clearly establish that on 23.8.2014, the petitioner Meera Kanwar   along   with   her   daughter   deceased   Deepali Kanwar was travelling from Dharamshala to Delhi in the Volvo Bus No.HP­63­5729 owned by the respondent No.2 and hired by the respondent No.1 being driven by the   respondent   No.3   Surender   Singh   and   when,   the aforesaid bus reached  at Chandigarh Crossing  and  it was being driven by the respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner and the bus hit with Swift Car No.HP­ 03T­4103 being driven by the son of the respondent No.5 in a rash  and negligent manner  and Deepali Kanwar daughter   of   the   petitioner   sustained   multiple   grievous injuries and the petitioner Meera Kanwar also sustained injuries   causing   10%   permanent   disability   and impairment i.e. right stiff wrist and left stiff knee and she spent  ₹  70,000/­ for treatment for injuries so sustained by her in the accident. 46. Now comes the question that from whom the petitioner is entitled to this amount of compensation. It has come in the evidence that at the time of accident, the offending ­8­ vehicle   Volvo   Bus   bearing   registration   No.HP­63­   5729 was owned by the respondent No.2 and engaged by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.3 was its driver and whereas, the Volvo Bus bearing registration No.HP­ 63­ 5729 was admittedly insured with the respondent No.4 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly liable to pay this compensation amount to the petitioner. But, since the bus in   question   was   insured   with   the   respondent   No.4, Therefore,   the   respondents   No.1,   2   and   3   have   to   be indemnified by the respondent No.4 for payment of the aforesaid   compensation   and   hence,   the   aforesaid compensation amount is to be paid by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner. Hence, the issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner and the same are as such   answered   in   the   affirmative. Whereas,   the   issue No.4 is decided in favour of the respondent No.4 and the issues No. 5 and 6 are decided against the respondent No.4 and the issues No.7 and 8 are decided against the respondent No.6 accordingly.” ‘Emphasis added’ 16. Markedly, the learned Tribunal has found the cause  of  accident to be  rash  and  negligent  of  both the drivers, yet for unexplained reasons, the liability has been fastened   upon   the   owner   and   driver   of   the   bus   and consequently, the appellant Insurance Company has only been held liable to indemnify the award. ­9­ 17. The learned Tribunal has found the testimony of claimant   Meera   Kanwar   to   be   consistent   in   respect   of cause  of   accident being  rash  and   negligent  of  both the drivers. The testimony of Surender Singh driver of the bus has   been   disbelieved   for   the   reason   that   there   was   no plausible explanation for his implication in the criminal case registered vide FIR Ext. PW3/A.  The version of this witness to the effect that he was implicated falsely to save the driver of the car has been brushed aside on the ground that the driver of the car had already died and there could not have been any question to save him. As regards the CCTV   footage   contained   in   DVD   PW2/D,   the   learned Tribunal   has   held   such   piece   of   evidence   to   have   not been proved in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has held that the witness Gopal Krishan had not procured the documents himself, rather it was stated to have been procured by an investigator engaged by the appellant. 18. As noticed above, only two eye witnesses have deposed in the case. One is the claimant Meera Kanwar and the other is driver of bus Surender Singh. Though, ­10­ claimant Meera Kanwar while appearing as a witness has stated that she did not witness the accident, nonetheless, it cannot be disputed that she was travelling in the bus. It has   been   categorically   stated   by   Meera   Kanwar   in   her deposition   that   the   bus   was   being   driven   in   rash   and negligent manner by the driver Surender Singh. She also stated that even the driver of the car was driving it rashly and negligently. The facts, thus, perceived by the claimant Meera Kanwar cannot be brushed aside as she did not appear to have interest to side with either party. 19. The story narrated by the driver Surender Singh while deposing before the Tribunal cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. The reason is simple that this witness has every interest to save himself by implicating the other. Another reason to treat the version of driver Surender Singh with suspicion is that in the reply filed by him before the learned Tribunal, except for denying the allegation of negligence, nothing more had been stated by him. It will be relevant to reproduce the extract of his reply as under: ­ ­11­ “Para­6. Reply to para 24 denied. The accident was (sic) took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Swift Car No. HP­03T­4103 and replying respondent was not   at   fault   as   such,   the   replying   respondent   is   not responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner.” 20. As regards the DVD Ext. RW2/D, the same has been   rightly   rejected   and   disbelieved   by   the   learned Tribunal as having not been proved in accordance with law. RW2   Gopal   Krishan   admitted   that   the   DVD   was procured   by   an   investigator   engaged   by   the   appellant Insurance Company. The investigator was not examined. The author of the document, who allegedly had prepared this DVD was also not produced in the witness box. Even the document Ext. RW2/B by which the DVD was allegedly provided to the appellant by police has not been proved in accordance with law. Furthermore, there is no evidence to vouch for the authenticity of the contents of DVD RW2/D. 21. Learned   Senior   Counsel   for   the   appellant  has placed reliance on document Ext. RA, which is a copy of a common award passed by the learned MACT, Chandigarh in   claim   petitions   arising   out   of   the   same   accident,   in ­12­ which the accident was held not to have caused by rash and   negligent   driving   of   the   driver   of   the   bus. He contended that in view of the specific findings recorded by the   MACT,   Chandigarh,   the   learned   Tribunal   could   not return   altogether   different   findings. The   contention   so raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be of any help to its case for the reasons firstly that the appeal(s) against the award Ext. RA are stated to be pending in the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and  secondly  the findings so recorded could not be treated as res­judicata as neither the owner nor the insurer of the Swift Car No. HP­03T­4103 were   party   in   proceedings   before   the   learned   MACT, Chandigarh. 22. The   owner   and   insurer   of   the   car   have   not assailed   the   findings   returned   by   the   learned   Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has found the accident to have been caused by rash and negligent driving of both the drivers. 23. At the time of hearing, nothing substantial has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant ­13­ to   assail   the   findings   of   the   learned   Tribunal   on   the quantum of compensation awarded on account of death of Deepali   Kanwar. Even   otherwise,   from   the   material   on record, I do not find any reason to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. The deceased Deepali   Kanwar   was   a   student   of   Jawahar   Lal   Nehru University,   Delhi   having   prospects   of   bright   career. In these circumstances, her notional income has rightly been assessed. There is no error in application of multiplier. Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires no interference. 24. In   view   of   the   specific   findings   of   composite negligence against drivers of both the vehicles as returned by   the   learned   Tribunal;   as   also   what   has   been   held hereinabove, the appeals deserves to be partially allowed by   holding   that   since   the   accident   has   taken   place   on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Bus No. HP­63­5729   and   Car   No.   HP­03T­4103,   the   owner   and driver of the bus, as also the owner of Car are liable to compensate   the   claimants   in   equal   proportion   and ­14­ accordingly,   the   appellant   and   New   India   Assurance Company   Ltd.   i.e.   insurer   of   the   car   shall   be   liable   to satisfy the awards in equal proportion. 25. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 16th July, 2025 Judge (kck)