1 2025:HHC:39567 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) No. 492 of 2019 Reserved on: 12.11.2025 Decided on: 22.11.2025 _________________________________________________________________ Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Veena Devi and others …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the appellant: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. B.M.Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate, for respondent No.8. None for respondents No.6 (a), 6(b) and respondent No.7. Satyen Vaidya, Judge By way of instant appeal, the appellant/insurer has assailed award dated 01.07.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. in MACP No. 142-G/2013/2010, whereby respondents No. 1 to 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 2025:HHC:39567 4/claimants have been awarded compensation amount of Rs.15,03,664/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. 2. The claimants (respondents No. 1 to 4 herein) had filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, <The Act=) for grant of compensation on account of death of Sh.Varinder, being his legal representatives and dependents. The claimant No.1 is the wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are the children and claimant No.4 is the mother of deceased Varinder. 3. It was alleged that deceased Varinder was working as a motor mechanic. On 20.11.2009 at about 11.30 AM the deceased was in the process of repairing bus No. HP-67-1467 parked on the side of the road at Nadaun in District Hamirpur. The deceased was under the bus for the purpose of repair, all of a sudden, truck bearing No. HP-23B-7059 dashed against the stationary bus, as a result of which, a heavy part of the bus fell on the deceased and crushed him to death. 4. It was averred that truck No. HP-23B-7059 was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver named Pammi and thus, the cause of accident was attributed 3 2025:HHC:39567 to the rash and negligent driving of said Pammi. The truck No. HP-23B-7059 was owned by respondent No.5 herein. The said vehicle was under a policy of insurance with the appellant- Insurer at the time of accident. The driver of the truck had died during the pendency of claim petition before the Tribunal. 5. The driver, owner and insurer of the bus No. HP-67- 1467 were also impleaded as party respondents in the claim petition and are respondents No. 6 to 8 in the instant appeal. 6. As per the claimants, the deceased used to earn Rs.8000/- per month from his avocation as mechanic and additional Rs.2000/- per month from agriculture. The deceased was stated to be 33 years old at the time of accident. 7. The owner and driver of truck No. HP-23B-7059 filed their joint reply. As per their stand, the truck bearing No. HP- 23B-7059 was not involved in the accident. The accident was attributed to the carelessness of the deceased. It was alleged that the bus was not properly jacked and the accident had taken place on account of such negligent act. 8. The appellant/insurer in its reply before the learned Tribunal had alleged that the vehicle i.e. truck No. HP-23B- 7059 was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions 4 2025:HHC:39567 of the policy of the insurance. The driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence. The allegation of collusion between the claimants and owner and driver of truck was also made. It was further alleged that bus No. HP-67-1467 had also contributed towards the accident. 9. The owner and driver of bus No. HP-67-1467 in their reply admitted the cause of accident to be rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck. 10. The insurer of the bus filed its reply with objections as to violation of terms and conditions of the policy. 11. Learned Tribunal on 25.07.2017 framed the following issues: (1) Whether deceased Varinder died in a motor vehicle accident which took place on 20.11.2009 at around 11.30 A.M. at place Sabzi Mandi Nadaun, Tehsil Nadaun District Hamirpur, HP., within the jurisdiction of police station Nadaun, by the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, Pammi, of his truck bearing registration No. HP-23-B-7059 on a public way? OPP (2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (3) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 1,2,4&5. 5 2025:HHC:39567 (4) Whether the petitioners are estopped by their act, conduct and acquiescence to file the present petition? OPR 1&2. (5) Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident i.e. 20.11.2009? OPR-3 (6) Whether the truck bearing registration No. HP-23- B-7059 was plied by respondent No.2 in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of alleged accident i.e. 20.11.2009? OPR-3 (7) Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition? OPR 4&5 (8) Whether the respondent No.5 driver of the bus bearing registration No. HP-67-1467 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident i.e. 20.11.2009? OPR-6 (9) Whether the bus bearing registration No. HP-67- 1467 was plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the time of alleged accident i.e. 20.11.2009? OPR-6. (10) Relief. 9. Issues No. 1 & 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. The claim petition was allowed by awarding Rs.15,03,664/- as compensation under various heads as under: (i) Loss of dependency = Rs.14,33,664/- 6 2025:HHC:39567 (ii) Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000/- (iii) Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/- (iv) Funeral charges = Rs. 15,000/- Total = Rs.15,03,664/- 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 11. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate, representing the appellant/insurer has taken the exception to the impugned award on the grounds firstly that the findings on issue No.1 returned by learned Tribunal were not in conformity with the evidence on record, and, secondly, that the compensation was excessive and not in conformity with the settled principles of law. 12. Learned Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Truck No.HP-23B-7059. It has been found that truck No. HP-23B-7059 had hit the stationary bus and resultantly, the death of the deceased Varinder had been caused. 13. Learned Tribunal has relied upon the statement of PW-2 Ravinder Kumar, who had appeared as an eye witness to the accident. This witness had stated that on the fateful day he was working as trainee conductor and was with the deceased, 7 2025:HHC:39567 who was called by the conductor of the bus No. HP-67-1467 for repairs. Accordingly, the deceased had started the repairs of the bus by getting underneath the body of the bus. In the meanwhile, the offending truck had dashed against the stationary bus and caused the accident. Though, this witness was cross-examined by the respondents, but his testimony could not be shattered. 14. In addition, FIR Ext.P-4 also revealed that the allegation was against the driver of the truck. The driver of the bus Ranjeet Singh had appeared as RW-2 and corroborated the same version. On the other hand, there was no evidence led by the respondents, which could discredit the version given by PW-2. The driver of the truck stepped into the witness box, but his testimony was of no use for the purpose of issue No.1 as he was not an eye witness. Thus, the findings returned by learned Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be faulted. 15. As regards the assessment of compensation, learned Tribunal has considered the monthly income of deceased at Rs.8000/-, to that extent, the only available evidence on record was the statement of PW-1, wife of the deceased. 8 2025:HHC:39567 16. Apparently, learned Tribunal has taken the help of guess work to arrive at the conclusion as to the monthly income of the deceased. Indisputably, there was no other evidence to that effect except the bald assertion made by PW-1. No doubt, where the documented proof of income, in a compensation case is not available, some amount of guess work is permissible; however, it has to be on realistic parameters. In such cases, the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act by the State Government can be a helpful indicator. 17. The deceased was proved to be working as a motor mechanic. As per the notification issued by the State Government in the year 2008 fixing minimum wages, the monthly wages of skilled worker were fixed at Rs.3660/- and that of a highly skilled workshop staff had been fixed Rs.4245/- per month. In this view of the matter, fixing of monthly income of deceased at Rs.8000/- by the learned Tribunal was without any basis. At the most, considering the deceased to be highly skillful, his wages could be assessed at Rs.4245/- per month rounded upto Rs.4300/- per month. 9 2025:HHC:39567 18. The age of the deceased has been assessed as 34 years, therefore, as per the mandate in Pranay Sethi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680, the increase of 40% is required to be added to the income of the deceased. By such addition, the monthly income of the deceased can be assessed at Rs.6000/- by rounding of the figure. 19. Learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd of the monthly income of deceased towards his personal expenses, whereas, in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra), it had to be 1/4th as the deceased had left behind four legal representatives/ dependents. Thus, after such deduction, the loss of monthly dependency will be Rs.4500/- and total loss of dependency will be Rs.4500 x 12 x 16 = Rs.8,64,000/-. 20. Learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards the loss of consortium, whereas, the compensation under said head had to be awarded at the rate of Rs.40,000/- to each of the dependents as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130. 21. The compensation under the heads viz., funeral charges and loss of estate have rightly been assessed by 10 2025:HHC:39567 learned Tribunal @ Rs.15,000/- each. However, an addition of 10% after three years is required to be made on the compensation awarded under the conventional heads viz. loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral charges. In this way, an addition of Rs.38,000/- is required to be made. 22. In view of what has been discussed above, on recalculation, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation as under:- 1. Loss of dependency= 4500x12x16= Rs.8,64,000/- 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,60,000/- 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/- 4. Funeral charges = Rs. 15,000/- 5. Enhancement @ 10% after every three years. = Rs. 38,000/- Total = Rs.10,92,000/- 23. In addition, the interest @ 7.5% per annum as awarded by learned Tribunal on the entire compensation amount from the date of filing of the petition till actual realization shall remain undisturbed. 24. In result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 01.07.2019, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, in MACP No. 142-G/2013/2010, is modified to the extent as held above. 11 2025:HHC:39567 25. The appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. 22nd November, 2025 (Satyen Vaidya) (GR) Judge