( 2025:HHC:22336 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 52 of 2016 with CMP Nos.15742 & 15747 of 2025 Date of decision: 10th July, 2025 National Insurance Co.Ltd …Appellant Versus Raj Kumari and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellant: Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Mr. Bhanu Verma and Mr.Ritik Prashar, Advocates for respondents No.1 to 4 and 6. Respondent No.5 deleted since expired. Respondents No.1 and 4 are present in person. Mr. Ashir Kaith, Advocate vice Mr.Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.7. Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge The appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against award dated 31.5.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla (in short ‘the MACT’) in MAC Petition RBT No. 135- S/2 of 2012/09 titled Raj Kumari and others vs. Govind Singh and another, whereby the MACT had awarded compensation in favour of 2 ( 2025:HHC:22336 ) claimants to the tune of Rs.10,02,600/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of payment. 2 During pendency of present appeal, matter has been amicably settled between the Insurance Company and claimants and in sequel thereto, a joint application CMP No. 15742 of 2025 has also been filed by parties stating the terms of compromise therein as under:- “2. That the award was assailed by the Insurance Company, however in meanwhile both parties in order to set the controversy finally at rest for all times, on the following terms and conditions:- A. That the Applicant No.1 has offered to pay the Respondents a lump sum amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Ten Lacs) (without interest) in full and final satisfaction of the entire award. The applicants mentioned as Applicants No.2 shall also be entitled to the proportionate interest accrued on the said sum of Rs. 10 Lacs from the date of deposit, i.e. 10.03.2016 before the Registry of this Hon’ble Court till its release. The remaining part of the Amount deposited, i.e. Rs.4,47,246/- along with the accrued interest is to be refunded to the Insurance Company/applicant No.1. B. That the Applicants/Claimants No.1 to 4 have accepted the proposal as mooted by the Appellant/Insurance Company for a suitable modification in the Award to that extent. The insurance company would have no objection for the release, the modified award on such terms as mentioned above.” 3 The statements of respondents No.2 and 4, who are present in person, as well as the counsel for appellant namely Mr. Sambhav 3 ( 2025:HHC:22336 ) Bhasin, Advocate, and learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 namely Mr.Y.K. Thakur, Advocate with respect to compromise have also been recorded. 4 Vide separate statement, respondent No.1 has stated that she is wife of deceased Kamlesh Tiwari and other respondents No.2 to 4 namely Anjali Kumari, Juhi Kumari and Chandan Kumar are their children and respondent No.5 Geeta Devi was her mother-in-law, who has expired during the pendency of appeal. She has also deposed that her children have also executed power of attorney in her favour to represent them and to compromise the matter on their behalf and the matter has been amicably settled with the Insurance Company as per terms, as explained in the joint application filed by them i.e. respondents No.1 to 4 and Insurance Company and as per compromise, they have agreed to receive Rs.10 lacs in lump sum as amount of compensation by waiving the interest component awarded by the MACT but with claim on the interest on Rs.10 lacs from the date of deposit of compensation in the Registry of this Court. She has also deposed that her children are also in agreement with terms of compromise. It has also been stated by respondent No.1 that the amount, in excess, if any deposited by the Insurance Company has to be refunded to the Insurance Company and the amount of compensation is to be disbursed amongst the surviving dependents/claimants in equal shares. She has also stated that the joint application is supported by her personal affidavit and they have entered 4 ( 2025:HHC:22336 ) into the compromise out of their free will, consent, and also without any kind of threat, coercion or pressure etc. 5 Respondent No.4 Chandan Kumar as well as Mr. Y.K. Thakur, Advocate, as per instructions on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, have endorsed the statement given by respondent No.1. 6 Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, appearing for Insurance Company, on instructions of Insurance Company, has also endorsed the compromise arrived at between the parties as per terms as mentioned in joint application, which has filed in this regard. 7 It has been submitted that originally there were six claimants in the claim petition before the MACT i.e. wife of Kamlesh Tiwari, three children of Kamlesh Tiwari and parents i.e. Geeta Devi and Keshav Tiwari. Being father Keshav Tiwari was not awarded any compensation by the MACT and said finding has been accepted by Keshav Tiwari and other claimants and said aspect of award has not been assailed by any party and therefore, he is not necessary party for compromising the matter as he is not involved in the matter. 8 During pendency of present appeal, respondent No.5 Geeta Devi has expired on 20.6.2016 and after her death, amount of compensation is to be apportioned amongst remaining claimants because there was and is no other dependent legal heir, entitled to claim the compensation on account of death of Kamlesh Tiwari and claimant/respondent No.5 was dependent claimant being mother of 5 ( 2025:HHC:22336 ) Kamlesh Tiwari and remaining claimants are now wife and children of Kamlesh Tiwari and therefore, by applying the principal of reversion of estate to source as contained under Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act, amount of compensation apportioned in favour of Geeta Devi deserves to be apportioned amongst remaining claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, as amount of compensation was awarded on account of death of husband of claimant/respondent No.1 and father of claimants/respondents No.2 to 4. 9 In view of compromise, arrived at between the parties, award dated 31.5.2014 passed in MAC Petition RBT No. 135-S/2 of 2012/09 titled Raj Kumari and others vs. Govind Singh and another is modified to the extent that respondents No.1 to 4 who are surviving claimants i.e. Raj Kumari, Anjali Kumari, Juhi Kumari and Chandan Kumar shall be entitled for total amount of compensation of Rs.10 lacs along with proportionate interest accrued thereon after deposit of amount by the Insurance Company in the Registry on 10th March, 2016 in equal shares, and excess amount, if any, is found to be deposited by Insurance Company, shall be released to the Insurance Company along with proportionate interest by remitting the same in bank account of Insurance Company on supplying the account details of Insurance Company. 10 The amount of compensation along with proportionate interest, falling in respective shares of surviving claimants i.e. respondents No.1 to 4, shall also be released in their favour by remitting 6 ( 2025:HHC:22336 ) the same in their bank accounts, mentioned in para 6 of CMP No. 15745 of 2025. Photocopies of front pages of Pass Books have also been placed on record with said application. Appeal along with applications i.e. CMP Nos. 15742 and 15747 of 2025 stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge. 10th July, 2025(MS)