2025:HHC:44588 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No. 4064 of 2013 Reserved on : 12.12.2025 Decided on : 19.12.2025 ____________________________________________________ _ Mahanti and another ...Appellants Versus Vidya Devi and others ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge The appellants feeling aggrieved by the award dated 12.01.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P., in MAC No. 24 of 2008, titled, Mahanti and another vs. Vidya Devi and others, have preferred the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount on account of death of Ved Prakash, who was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2. 2. The key facts for adjudication of the issues in the 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:44588 appeal are that deceased Ved Prakash had met with an accident occurred on 20.10.2006, when he had gone to purchase sweets from the shop of one Sh. Yogesh Kumar at Panjgain Chowk, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur, H.P. As per the pleadings, the deceased was firstly taken to PHC Panjgain, wherefrom he was referred to District Hospital at Bilaspur. On the same day, he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admitted as an indoor patient. As per the averments made in the claim petition, the deceased was operated many times and an amount of ₹7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lac only) was spent on his treatment. After about 1 year and 5 months Ved Prakash had died on 24.03.2008. 3. The appellants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a sum of ₹20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lac only) on account of death of deceased Ved Prakash averring therein that the death was result of the accident. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 in the claim petition filed reply and admitted that vehicle bearing registration No. HP 24-5319, belongs to respondent No.1. However, it was submitted that the vehicle was not involved in the 3 2025:HHC:44588 accident. The truck was insured with respondent No. 3- insurance company. 5. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed separate reply to the claim petition and took preliminary objections that no cause of action is accrued against the company. Further, the vehicle in question was being driven by an unauthorized person, who had no valid and effective driving licence. It was further averred that the vehicle in question was being plied without registration certificate, fitness certificate and valid route permit and the insurance policy excludes such type of liabilities in the absence of aforementioned documents. On merits, it was pleaded that the deceased had died due to natural death and as such the appellants are not entitled for any compensation. 6. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings framed the issues in the petition which are reproduced as under :- 1. Whether the deceased Shri Ved Parkash has died on account of the injuries sustained by him on 20.10.2006 in a motor vehicle accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, while driving truck No. HP 24- 5319, as alleged? …...OPP. 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? ...OPP. 3. Whether causa causon of the demise of the deceased were not the injuries sustained by him 4 2025:HHC:44588 in a motor vehicle accident, as alleged?...OPR-3 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent no. 2 in contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, as alleged?...OPR-3 5. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effects?...OPR-3 6. Relief. 7. After recording the evidence led by the parties, the Tribunal below gave categorical findings that the appellants have failed to prove that the deceased Ved Prakash had died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident caused by the truck. However, the Tribunal below on the basis of the evidence came to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to the amount for the medical treatment and transportation charges, as well as attendant charges. The total compensation amount which was awarded in favour of the appellants was to the tune of ₹89,400/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till its realization. The Tribunal held that the compensation amount will be paid in the ratio of 75:25 to appellants No.1 and 2, respectively. 8. Ms. Veena Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the Tribunal below has 5 2025:HHC:44588 erred while returning the findings that the deceased had not died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and further the compensation amount awarded in favour of the appellants is very meager. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the insurance company has supported the award and has argued that since the appellants have failed to prove that the death is on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased, the findings recorded by the Tribunal below do not require any interference. Further, it was argued that no evidence has been led by the appellants to prove that the death of the deceased is the result of injuries sustained by him except the bald statements of the witnesses. Since the Doctor who could have been the best person to depose regarding the cause of death has not been examined, therefore, it was argued that the award under challenge does not require any interference. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 11. From record, it cannot be substantiated by the appellants that the death of the deceased was on account of the injuries sustained by him. There is a gap of more than 6 2025:HHC:44588 1 year and 5 months from the date of accident till the death of the deceased and since there is no medical evidence brought on record, the findings returned by the Tribunal below that the death of the deceased is not on account of the injuries, do not call for any interference. 12. The other issue with respect to grant of compensation on account of medical treatment and transportation charges is concerned, that too, calls for no interference, since the appellants have not produced any evidence more than the amount, which is claimed and granted by the Tribunal. 13. So far as the amount towards attendant charges is concerned, that is on the lower side in view of the fact that it has come in the statement of PW-1 Chaman Lal, that after the accident, the deceased was being looked after by S/Sh. Sudhir and Gulshan for 1 year and 5 months. If the cross examination of this witness is seen, no suggestion has been put to him with respect to engaging the attendants to look after the deceased. No doubt that no documentary evidence has been led to prove that the deceased was being looked after by S/Sh. Sudhir and Gulshan, but since there is no cross examination to that part of the statement, 7 2025:HHC:44588 the said version cannot be ignored. It is settled law that even if no documentary evidence is produced, the statement of the witness regarding a particular fact cannot be discarded, if he is not cross-examined on that particular aspect. In the present case, no suggestion has been given to the witness that S/Sh. Sudhir and Gulshan were not engaged as attendants to look after the deceased. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmibai (dead) through LRs and another vs. Bhagwantbuva (dead) through LRs and others (2013) 4 SCC 97 has held that when there is no cross-examination on a particular point, the said part of the statement has to be considered while adjudicating the matter. The relevant para 40 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “40. Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross- examine a witness as regards information, tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination-in-chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. 8 2025:HHC:44588 Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See Khem Chand v. State of H.P, State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, Rajinder Pershad v. Darshana Devi and Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan.)” 15. A perusal of the statement of PW-1 namely Chaman Lal, clearly reveals that after the accident, the deceased was being looked by S/Sh. Sudhir and Gulshan, who were engaged by the appellants for 1 year and 5 months. If the deceased was being looked after by these two persons for 1 year and 5 months from the date of the accident till his death, the attendant charges at the rate of ₹ 3,000/- per month are justified to be awarded in favour of the appellants. Hence, the award passed by the Tribunal below, so far granting attendant charges of ₹5,000/- is concerned, the same is modified, thereby granting a total sum of ₹ 3,000 x 17= ₹ 51,000/-, @ ₹ 3,000/- per month for 17 months. 16. Rest of award passed by the Tribunal on other 9 2025:HHC:44588 counts is just and reasonable and as such requires no interference. Resultantly, now the claimants are held entitled for compensation as under:- 1. Medical treatment ₹ 51,800/- 2. Transportation charges ₹ 32,600/- 3. Attendant charges ₹ 51,000/- (i.e. ₹ 3,000/- x 17 months = ₹ 51,000/-) Total ₹ 1,35,400/- 17. No other points have been raised by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 18. In view of the above, the award passed by the Tribunal below is modified, thereby enhancing the compensation amount from ₹ 89,400/- to ₹ 1,35,400/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till actual realization. The order of apportionment as determined by the Tribunal is maintained. Respondent No.3-insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 90 days from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 19 th December, 2025 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj ) (Anurag) Judge