2025:HHC:38107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No.481 of 2017 Reserved on: 07.11.2025 Date of Decision: 13.11.2025 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Wandana Kumari & others ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Naveen K. Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Satyen Vaidya, Judge This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”) has been preferred by the insurer against the Award dated 01.08.2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, H.P. (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.P. No.120/2014. 2. Respondents No.1 to 4 herein (hereinafter referred to as “claimants”) had preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before learned Tribunal to seek compensation on account of death of Shri Ravinder Singh, who had died on 13.09.2014 in an 2 2025:HHC:38107 accident involving motor vehicles bearing Registration No. HP- 20C-3750 (Scooter) and PB-12Q-3907 (Car). 3. The claimants had alleged that on 13.09.2014 deceased Ravinder Singh was riding on his scooter bearing registration No. HP 20C-3750 with claimant No.1, Wandana Kumari on the pillion. At about, 7:25 AM, near railway bridge Bharolian, Una, the car bearing PB-12Q-3907, being driven by respondent No.5 herein (owner) in a rash and negligent manner, hit the scooter, as a result of which deceased Ravinder Singh and claimant No.1 fell on the road suffering serious injuries. Deceased Ravinder Singh had allegedly died as a result of injuries suffered by him in the aforesaid accident. 4. The claimants had attributed the cause of accident to the rash and negligent driving of the owner. 5. It was claimed by the claimants that the deceased, at the time of death, was employed with M/s AIPL-HUNAN ALLONWARD JV, 3rd Floor, Vardhman tower, Community Centre, Vikaspuri, New Delhi and was getting Rs.1,00,000/- per month as salary with Rs.65,000/- per month as overseas allowance. The deceased was stated to be a Civil Engineer having management degree as additional qualification. He was also stated to be working in Afghanistan in a project being executed by his employer. The deceased was alleged to have visited India on leave and on the 3 2025:HHC:38107 fateful day was stated to be on his way to drop his wife at the School, where she was employed. 6. The claimants had further claimed themselves to be totally dependent upon the deceased for livelihood. 7. The owner had contested the claim petition by denying the allegations made therein. It was averred that the owner had seen the deceased and his wife having fallen on the road in injured condition along with the scooter and had stopped to help them. As per owner, he was falsely implicated in the case. 8. The insurer also contested the petition. It was alleged that the insurer had engaged an investigator and had come to know that the vehicle i.e. car PB-12Q-3907 was not involved in the accident. The insurer also sought to absolve itself from indemnifying the insured by alleging breach of terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. 9. Learned Tribunal had framed the following issues: 1. Whether deceased Ravinder Kumar died on 13.09.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration NO.PB12Q- 3970 by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is decided in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP. 4 2025:HHC:38107 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged?OPR2 4. Whether the petition is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of parties, as alleged?OPR 5. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, if so, its effect ?OPR2 6. Whether the vehicle bearing registration No. PB12Q-3970 was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and provisions of M.V.Act, as alleged?OPR2 7. Relief. 10. Issues No.1 and 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.93,25,000/- to the claimants under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs.87,75,000/- Funeral and litigation expenses Rs.50,000/- Loss of estate Rs.1,00,000/- Consortium to wife Rs.1,00,000/- Compensation to claimant No.1 for pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- Total Rs.93,25,000/- 11. In addition, the claimants have also been held entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment. The insurer has been held liable to indemnify 5 2025:HHC:38107 the insured. Claimant No.1 has been held entitled to 40% of the compensation amount and all other claimants have been held entitled to 20% of the compensation amount each. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties have also gone through the record carefully. 13. Learned Senior Advocate, representing the appellant- insurer, in the first instance, has assailed the impugned award by challenging the findings on issue No.1. The finding that the accident had been caused by rash and negligent driving of the owner has been alleged to be result of surmises and conjectures only. According to learned counsel, the best evidence had been withheld by the claimants. It was contended that the Claimant No.1, who was on the pillion of the scooter at the time of accident, had not been examined and hence, adverse inference was liable to be drawn against the claimants. 14. The claimants had examined PW-6 Ajay Kumar as an eye witness to the incident. According to this witness the accident had taken place at a distance of about 50 feet away from him. He clearly deposed that the car was being driven by the owner in high speed and while overtaking the scooter, the owner had hit the scooter with car resulting into the accident in question. Noticeably, PW-6 was cross-examined by the owner as well as insurer. Though, it was suggested to the witness that he was deposing 6 2025:HHC:38107 falsely, but the mode and manner in which the accident was stated to have taken place by the owner, was not put to him. The owner had specifically pleaded that he was only a passerby and had halted his car to help the victims i.e. the deceased and his wife, but no such suggestion was put to PW-6 while being cross-examined on behalf of the owner. 15. Another aspect that cannot be lost sight of is that FIR No.265/2014 was registered at Police Station, Sadar Una with respect to the accident in question. The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of PW-6 Ajay Kumar and the time of recording of FIR is 9:30 AM. Thus, keeping in view the entirety of circumstances, it cannot be said that PW-6 was a procured witness. The proximity of time between the accident and recording of FIR negates the possibility of any such hypothesis. Further, as per the version of owner, he was accompanied by his wife and another person in the car at the time of accident, but none of such persons had been examined by the owner to corroborate his version. In such circumstances, the findings returned by learned Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be faulted. The view formed by learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record is a possible and plausible one and needs no inference. 16. The impugned award has also been challenged being excessive. Learned Senior Advocate for the insurer has argued that 7 2025:HHC:38107 the assessment of the monthly income of deceased by learned Tribunal was completely hypothetical without the support of any legal evidence. 17. Learned Tribunal has placed reliance on the statement of PW-3 Abhishek Singh, who was an employee of M/S AIPL- HUNAN ALLONWARD JVG-29. According to this witness, the deceased was working with the aforesaid company at the time of death and was getting a salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month besides Rs.65,000/- per month as overseas allowance. Salary certificate of the deceased Ext. PW-3/B was proved on record. In addition, the contract of employment under which the deceased was working with the aforesaid company was also placed on record Ext. PW- 3/E. It was clear from the aforesaid documents and the statement of PW-3 that the deceased was an employee of M/S AIPL-HUNAN ALLONWARD JVG-29 and was working in Afghanistan. His salary was Rs.1,00,000/- per month and in addition the deceased was also getting Rs.65,000/- per month as overseas allowance. 18. The insurer has tried to draw benefit from a copy of communication Ext. R-1 placed on record. On its basis, it has sought to be contended that the deceased had tendered his resignation and was not the employee of aforesaid company at the time of death. 8 2025:HHC:38107 19. Learned Tribunal having considered all the aspects has negated the contention of the insurer. It has been found from the contents Ext. R-1 itself that though, the deceased had tendered his resignation, but there was no evidence that the said resignation had been accepted. Rather, the evidence was to the contrary that the resignation had not been accepted. 20. It has further been sought to be addressed on the basis of contents of document Ext. R-1 that deceased had left Afghanistan for India without the permission of his employer and thus, he could not claim any benefit. The argument so raised also deserves rejections for the reason that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the deceased had ceased to be in employment of the aforesaid company at the time of death. Learned Tribunal duly considered the fact and did not allow the benefit of overseas allowance in favour of the deceased. Learned Tribunal considered the salary of Rs.1,00,000/- per month only for assessment of compensation/loss of dependency. The income tax deducted in Afghanistan on the salary of Rs.1,00,000/- was reduced and in such a manner learned Tribunal held Rs.75,000/- per month as the monthly income of deceased at the time of death. The assessment made by learned Tribunal is based on the evidence on record. Further, corroboration can be found from the material placed on record by the insurer itself. As per insurer, RW-2 9 2025:HHC:38107 Nasib Chand was appointed as investigator. During investigation, RW-2 had collected certain documents from the claimants. Copies of such documents have been placed on record along with the report of investigator Ext. RW-2/B. The said documents include the copy of income tax return of the deceased for the assessment year 2009-2010 where his gross total income was Rs.5,48,552/-. Another document annexed with the report as Annexure A/F-11 is a copy of appointment letter dated 11.11.2011 issued to the deceased by a company named IVRCL Ltd whereby the gross salary of Rs.92,800/- per month had been offered to the deceased. Thus, the assessment of Rs.75,000/- per month as monthly income of deceased in the year 2015 by learned Tribunal cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable. 21. Noticeably, the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the benefit of incremental increase in the income of the deceased on account of loss of future prospects. As per the dictum rendered by Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi, 2017 (16) SCC 680, the incremental increase at the rate of 25% was permissible in the instant case, therefore, the monthly income of the deceased should have been assessed at Rs.1,00,000/- per month for assessment of compensation. Thus, after deduction of ¼th of the monthly income on account of personal expenses, the loss of 10 2025:HHC:38107 dependency would be Rs.75,000/- per month and Rs.9,00,000/- per annum as the number of dependents in the instant case are four. The deceased was aged about 47 years, therefore, by application of multiplier of 13, the total of loss of dependency would be Rs.1,17,00,000/-. 22. Further, to make the compensation awarded under conservative heads in tune with Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants will be entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of Rs.40,000/- each. In addition, they will also be entitled to compensation under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses at the rate of Rs.15,000/- each. 23. Claimant No.1 will not be entitled to any compensation for the injuries suffered by her for the reasons that no evidence has been led to that effect. Even the injured claimant No.1 has not chosen to step into the witness box. The only document on record to suggest injuries suffered by claimant is MLC Ext. PW-1/A, according to which the injuries were simple in nature. 24. In light of above discussion, the compensation payable to the claimants is assessed as under: Loss of dependency Rs.1,17,00,000/-. Loss of consortium Rs.40,000 x 4= Rs.1,60,000/- Loss of estate Rs.15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,18,90,000/- 11 2025:HHC:38107 25. The interest as awarded by learned Tribunal on the compensation amount shall remain unchanged. There also will be no change in the rate of apportionment. 26. In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service, (2013) 16 SCC 719, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal and Court, even at the appellate Stage, can award just, fair and adequate compensation to fulfill the intent of legislation. It has been elaborated as under: “19. The amount of Rs.16,96,000/- as calculated above, under the various heads of losses, should be awarded in favour of appellants-claimants, though there is no specific mention regarding enhancing of compensation as in the appeal it has been basically requested by the appellants to set aside the judgment and order passed by the High respondent. We must follow the legal principles of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh & Ors. at para 7, wherein with respect to the provisions of the M.V. Act, this Court has observed as under: “There is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case, where from the evidence brought on record if the Tribunal/court considers that the claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such award. The only embargo is —it should be “just” compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, 12 2025:HHC:38107 fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. This would be clear by reference to the relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 166 provides that an application for compensation arising out of an accident involving the death of, or bodily injury to, persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles, or damages to any property of a third party so arising, or both, could be made (a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or (b) by the owner of the property; or (c) where death has resulted from the accident, by all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased; or (d) by any agent duly authorised by the person injured or all or any of the legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be.” 27. In result, though the appeal of the insurer is dismissed, the impugned award dated 01.08.2017, passed by learned Tribunal in M.A.C.P. No.120/2014 is modified to the extent as detailed hereinabove. 28. No orders as to costs. 29. The appeal as also all pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly. (Satyen Vaidya) Judge November 13, 2025 (vt)