2025:HHC:44853 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 11 of 2015 Decided on : 19.12.2025 ____________________________________________________________ The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Dr. K.L. Bhagat and others ...Respondents _____________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellant: Mr. Brij Mohan Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Himalvi and Ms. Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocates. For the respondents: Ms. Upasana, Advocate, vice Mr. K.S. Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to. 3. Mr. Ayush Chauhan, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. None for respondent No. 5. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge (Oral) The present appeal arises from the award dated 01.09.2014, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- II, Sirmaur, District at Nahan, H.P., whereby the claim petition preferred by respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants herein, bearing MAC Petition No. 21-N/2 of 2010, titled, Dr. K.L. Bhagat and others vs. Vijay Chauhan and others, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:44853 has been allowed, thereby awarding a sum of ₹39,72,200/-, as compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till realization of the amount in favour of claimants/respondents No. 2 & 3 herein. Respondents No.2 and 3 have been held entitled to receive the compensation amount in the ratio of 50:50 each and the appellant/insurance company has been directed to indemnify the owner. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the key facts for adjudication of the present appeal are that late Smt. Kiran Bala Bhagat, wife of respondent No.1 and mother of respondents No.2 and 3, had died in a motor accident occurred on 12.11.2009, at about 08.30 AM, near village Rukhadi, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P., involving Alto LX bearing registration No. HP-01N-0102, owned by respondent No. 4. 3. Respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming a sum of ₹1,00,00,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, on account of death of Smt. Kiran Bala Bhagat. It was pleaded in the claim petition that the deceased was Sister Tutor with the office of the Chief 3 2025:HHC:44853 Medical Officer, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., was drawing a salary of ₹26,555/- per month. The deceased at the time of death was 41 years old. She was to remain in service at least for 17 years more and was likely to be promoted to the post of Principal of the institution and her salary was bound to be increased manifold. 4. Owner/ respondent No. 4 herein, filed a reply to the claim petition and stated that the accident occurred due to the sudden mechanical failure in the vehicle in question, resulting into death of Smt. Kiran Bala Bhagat. It was further averred that the compensation amount claimed is highly exaggerated and disproportionate to the income of the deceased. So far as the accident is concerned, it was admitted by respondent No. 4. 5. Appellant/insurance company filed separate reply and took preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable and the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver. It was also averred that the deceased was gratuitous passenger and was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. 6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings, 4 2025:HHC:44853 framed the issues in the claim petition and thereafter recorded the evidence led by the parties. 7. The Tribunal after recording the findings has awarded a sum of ₹39,72,200/- as compensation to respondents No.2 and 3, being the minor daughters of deceased along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till its realization. The amount was ordered to be paid to them in the ratio of 50:50 and no amount was awarded in favour of respondent No. 1, who was the husband of deceased. 8. The appellant has preferred the appeal on the grounds that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and the Tribunal has erred while returning the findings that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving. 9. The claimants being satisfied with the award did not prefer any appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 11. Mr. Brij Mohan Chauhan, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Amit Himalvi, learned counsel, has vehemently argued that the Tribunal below has erred while 5 2025:HHC:44853 deducting only 1/3rd towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, whereas, it ought to have been 50%. Learned Senior counsel has also vehemently argued that the findings recorded by the Tribunal of rash and negligent driving are perverse and therefore, prayed that the award passed by the Tribunal be quashed. 12. So far as the first contention raised by the learned Senior counsel, that the Tribunal below has erred while deducting only 1/3rd expenses towards personal and living expenses is concerned, it is now settled that if the claimants are more than two to three, the deduction towards the personal expenses will be 1/3rd. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (SMT) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, has categorically held that where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd where the dependents of family members are two to three. 13. In the present case the deceased has left behind two minor daughters and her husband, and thus the Tribunal has not erred while deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses of the deceased. The view taken by the 6 2025:HHC:44853 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and thus no interference is called for, in the award under challenge. 14. Another submission which has been made by the learned Senior counsel that the Tribunal below has erred in returning the findings that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving is concerned, that also deserves rejection. PW4 HC Khajan Singh has placed on record copy of FIR No. 262/09 dated 12.11.2009, registered under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of Indian Penal Code against respondent No.5, who was respondent No.2 in the claim petition. Since the driver was facing the trial under the ibid Sections, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving and deceased, who sustained injuries in the accident has succumbed to the same. The appellant-insurance company has not led any evidence to prove otherwise and the evidence which has come in fore clearly establishes that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving 7 2025:HHC:44853 of the driver and thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal below do not warrant any interference. 15. No other points have been raised by the counsel representing the appellant. 16. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal below is affirmed. The pending miscellaneous applications, if any also stand disposed of. No orders as to cost. 19 th December, 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge