2025:HHC:39515 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 68 of 2017 Reserved on: 11.11.2025 Date of decision: 22.11.2025. National Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant versus Samangala Devi & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No. For the appellant : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nisha Nahlot, Advocate. For the respondents : Ms. Nishi Goel, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, for respondent No.7. Satyen Vaidya, Judge: This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the 8Act9) against the award dated 01.09.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I) Kangra at Dharmshala (for short the 8Tribunal9) in MACP (RBT) No. 125- K/II/13/06. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- 2. Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) had claimed compensation by filing petition under section 166 of the Act, on account of death of late Chuni Lal, who allegedly had died in a motor accident on 17.6.2006. 3. It was alleged that on 17.6.2006 at about 1.15. AM, at place known as ‘Solah-meel’ on Palampur-Gagal road in District Kangra, deceased was driving vehicle (Maruti Van) No. HP-56-0990. He was accompanied by his wife Samangala Devi (Claimant No.1). Another vehicle (Mahindra Jeep) No. PB-06E-2341 came from opposite direction and hit the vehicle being driven by the deceased. The cause of accident was attributed to the driver of vehicle No. PB-06E-2341, as he was alleged to be driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. 4. In the above background, the driver, owner and insurer of vehicle No. PB-06E-2341, were arrayed as respondents No. 1 to 3 in the claim petition. Respondent No.4 was arrayed being the earlier owner of the vehicle. -3- Respondents No. 5 and 6 were impleaded as owner and insurer of vehicle No. HP-56-0990. 5. As per claimants, the deceased had received grievous injuries in the accident, which ultimately had proved fatal. It was urged that deceased was working as motor mechanic and was earning Rs. 6000/- per month. All the claimants had claimed themselves to be totally dependent upon the deceased for livelihood. 6. As per defence taken by the driver and the owner of vehicle No. PB-06E-2341, in their joint reply, it was stated that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. It was urged that the deceased was drunk and had struck his vehicle against stationary vehicle No. PB-06E-2341. 7. The insurer of vehicle No. PB-06E-2341 (appellant herein) had also taken the same defence as by respondents No. 1 and 2 herein. In addition, the appellant/insurer had taken objection that the vehicle at the time of accident was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. As per -4- appellant/insurer, the driver i.e. respondent No.1 was not holding the valid driving license. The vehicle No. PB-06E- 2341 was also alleged to be without valid registration and fitness certificate. 8. Respondent No.4 had raised defence that he had sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 much before the date of accident and hence his impleadment in the petition was unnecessary. 9. Respondent No.5 owner of vehicle No. HP-56- 0990 had not defended the cause. 10. Respondent No.6 i.e. insurer of vehicle No. HP- 56-0990 had prayed for being absolved from the liability, if any, by denying the existence of any policy of insurance, as alleged. 11. The learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the death of Chuni Lal was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep No PB-06E 2341 by the respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR1&2 -5- 4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action? OPR 1 & 2 5. Whether the vehicle No HP-56-0990 was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the respondent No 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident? OPR-3 7. Whether the respondent No.2 was not having valid documents of the vehicle at the relevant time?OPR-3 8. Whether the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, as alleged? OPR-4 9. Whether the respondent No.5 was not holding valid documents of the vehicle No. HP-56-0990? OPR-6 9-A. Whether the offending vehicle bearing No. HP-56- 0990 was not insured with respondent No.6 on the day of accident as alleged? OPR-6. 10. Relief.” 12. 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. 17,21,000/- under the following heads:- 1. Loss of dependency Rs. 12,96,000/- 2. Loss of consortium (claimant No.1) Rs. 1,00,000 3. Loss of love and affection Rs.1,00,000/- each 4. Funeral expenses Rs. 25,000/- -6- Total Rs. 17,21,000/- 13. In addition, the claimants have also been held entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till actual payment. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 15. Learned Senior Counsel representing the appellant/insurer has taken exception to the impugned award on two grounds. Firstly, that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of deceased himself and for such reason, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on issues No. 1, 5 and 8 were liable to be set aside and secondly, that the assessment of compensation by the learned Tribunal was on a higher side being not in conformity with the settled principles of law. 16. As regards the cause of accident, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 i.e. the driver of vehicle No. PB-06E-2341. In order to arrive at the above conclusion, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance -7- on the statement of PW-1 Samangala Devi, who admittedly was an eye witness. Though, in the FIR pertaining to incident, the blame was attributed to the deceased, the learned Tribunal has discarded the version reported in the FIR on the ground, firstly that it was recorded on the version of the driver of offending vehicle in the absence of Claimant No.1 and secondly that there was discrepancies in the version of respondent No.1 in the FIR and the reply filed before the learned Tribunal. In reply, respondent No.1 had taken a stand that the deceased was intoxicated whereas it was not so mentioned in the FIR. The learned Tribunal has also discarded the theory of deceased being under intoxication at the time of accident by making reference to the contents of FIR and post mortem report in which it was not so found. In addition, the learned Tribunal also drew adverse inference for non-examination of the driver of the vehicle as a witness. As regards the statement of the owner of offending vehicle, it was discarded as being hearsay. -8- 17. Having perused the record, I am of considered view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal on issues No. 1, 5 and 8 cannot be faulted with; for the reasons that such findings are duly borne from the evidence on record. As against the version of PW-1, Samangala Devi, who was an eye witness to the incident, there was no other credible evidence on record to suggest otherwise. Since in the post mortem report, no trace of alcohol was found in the body of the deceased, the version given by respondents No. 1 and 2 in their reply also reflects lack of bonafide. 18. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is seen that learned Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per month by holding that he had been working as mechanic. Admittedly, except the oral version of PW-1, there was no documented proof to prove the income of the deceased. No doubt, the learned Tribunal was entitled to make the assessment by resorting to some amount of guesswork but such guesswork cannot be away from the realistic parameters. No reason has been -9- assigned by the learned Tribunal as to how it concluded the income of the deceased to be at Rs. 6,000/-. 19. In the situation where there is no documented proof of income, reliance can be placed on the minimum wages fixed by the Government under the Minimum Wages Act. The accident in the instant case had taken place in the year 2006. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/insurer has placed on record a copy of notification issued by the State Government in the year 2008, whereby the monthly wages of skilled mechanics were fixed at Rs. 3660/- per month and that of a higher skilled workshop staff had been fixed at Rs. 4245/- per month. On its test, the learned Senior Counsel urged that by placing reliance on the aforesaid document, the monthly wages of the deceased cannot be assessed more than Rs. 3660/- per month. 20. It is trite that reliance can be placed on the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, where the income is not documented but it can only be a helpful indicator only and not the sole criteria. It cannot -10- be ignored that the minimum wages are fixed for fixed working hours, whereas a private self-employed person normally works for extra hours. In view of the fact that the deceased was self-employed, the benefit can be given to him of being a higher skilled workman and for working overtime. In this view of the matter, the wages fixed under notification relied upon by the appellant/insurer for higher skilled workmen can reasonably be allowed in the instant case. Thus, considering the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs. 4245/-, 40% is required to be added to said amount on account of loss of future prospects in terms of judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680. Thus, the monthly income of deceased by addition of 40% would be at Rs. 5943/-, which for convenience can be rounded off at Rs. 6000/- per month. The learned Tribunal had not been right in assessing the income of deceased by addition of 50% on account of loss of future prospects. -11- 21. In order to assess the monthly loss of dependency, 1/4th of the monthly income of deceased is required to be deducted from his monthly income and after such deduction, the loss of monthly dependency would be at Rs. 4500/-. The relevant multiplier in the case where the deceased has been held to be 35 years will be 16 in terms of judgment passed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 721. Thus, the total loss of dependency will be Rs. 4500x12x16= Rs. 8,64,000/-. The learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the compensation under the head loss of consortium as also loss of love and affection. As per Pranay Sethi (supra) as also the judgment passed by the Hon9ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram & others, 2018 (18) SCC 130, the claimants are entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each and nothing additional is payable to any of the claimants under the head loss of love and affection. Further Rs. 15,000/- each under the head cremation charges and loss of estate is liable to be added -12- in the compensation. Lastly, in terms of judgment in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants will also be entitled to enhancement at the rate of 10% after every three years on the compensation awardable under the conventional heads; loss of consortium, loss of estate and funeral charges. Therefore, an addition of Rs. 38,000/- is required to be made on this count. 22. In light of what has been observed above, on recalculation of the compensation, payable to the claimants figures as under:- 1 Loss of dependency 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 at the rate of 10% after every three years Rs. 38,000/- Total Rs. 10,92,000/- In addition, the claimants will be entitled to interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. The apportionment of compensation shall be as under:- -13- 1. Claimant No.1 40% 2. Claimant Nos. 2 to 4 20% each 23. In result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned award dated 01.09.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I) Kangra at Dharmshala in MACP (RBT) No. 125-K/II/13/06 is modified to the extent, as detailed above. 24. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith. (Satyen Vaidya) 22nd November, 2025 Judge (kck)