2025:HHC:28996 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 584 of 2018 a/w FAO No. 549 of 2019 Reserved on: 18.8.2025 Date of decision: 27.08.2025. 1. FAO No. 584 of 2018 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant versus Kamlesh Kumari& others …Respondents. 2. FAO No. 549 of 2019 Kamlesh Kumari & others ….Appellants Versus Naveen Walia & others. …Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No. 584 of 2018 and for respondent No.3 in FAO No. 549 of 2019. For the respondents : Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No. 549 of 2019 and for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 584 of 2018. Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.5 in FAO No. 584 of 2018 and for respondent No. 2 in FAO No. 549 of 2019. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? -2- Satyen Vaidya, Judge: Both these appeals have arisen from the same award, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, hence are being decided by a common judgment. 2. Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) had filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act) for compensation on account of death of Sh. Vasu Dev in a motor accident. It was alleged that on 12.2.2014, deceased Vasu Dev was standing on the roadside at Shivalik Chowk, Parwanoo. Truck bearing number HR-68A-4959 while being driven by respondent No.5 herein (hereinafter referred to as the driver) hit the deceased Vasu Dev, causing his death on the spot. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. 3. The truck was owned by respondent No.4 herein (hereinafter referred to as the owner) and was insured by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the insurer). 4. Claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Vasu Dev. They claimed themselves to be totally dependent upon deceased. -3- 5. FIR No. 17 of 2014 dated 12.2.2014 was registered at Police Station Parwanoo with respect to the accident. 6. The owner of the vehicle filed his reply. The allegation of accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver was denied. It was alleged that the accident had taken place due to fault of the deceased himself. 7. Respondent No.2 also filed his reply and reiterated that he was not negligent in driving the vehicle. The factum of the truck being insured by the insurer was disclosed. All other averments made in the petition were denied in generality. 8. In its reply filed by the insurer, it was alleged that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It was also alleged that the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. -4- 9. Learned Tribunal framed following issues:- “i) Whether the deceased Vasu Dev died on dated 12.2.2014 at place Shiwalik Chowk, Parwanoo, Tehsil Kausauli due to the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2 of a vehicle bearing No.HR-68A-4959, as alleged? OPP ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? OPP iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR iv) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of accident? OPR-3 v) Whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3. v) Relief.” 10. Issues No. 1 and 2 were answered in affirmative and all other issues were decided in negative. The claim petition was allowed. The claimants were held entitled to compensation of Rs. 7,98,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 11. Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate appearing for the appellant in FAO No. 584 of 2018 has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the quantum of -5- compensation was highly excessive and on the other hand, the claimants have filed FAO 549 of 2019, seeking enhancement of compensation. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 13. Deceased Vasu Dev was driver by profession. PW-2 Madan Lal brother of the deceased had specifically deposed to this effect. It was stated that the deceased was working as a driver with one Satpal. The said Satpal was also examined as PW-3, who corroborated the version of PW-2 by verifying the fact that deceased was working as a driver with him. The aforesaid evidence with respect to profession of deceased could not be shattered or rebutted by owner, driver or insurer. 14. Though, the evidence was led by the claimants that the monthly income of the deceased from profession of driver was more than 30,000/-, however, the learned Tribunal by disbelieving such version came to the conclusion that the deceased could be said to be earning the minimum wage of the labourer. Learned Tribunal quantified such wage at the rate of Rs. 180 per day i.e. Rs. -6- 5400/- per month and on its basis assessed the amount of loss of dependency. 15. In view of the fact that the deceased was proved to be a driver by profession, the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased at par with an unskilled labourer cannot be countenanced. Even if the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, was to be considered as relevant factor for assessing the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have taken note of the Government notification issued with respect to fixation of minimum wages of the driver. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Labour and Employment vide notification dated 28.5.2014 had fixed minimum rates of wages in the scheduled employment of motor transport. These rates were made applicable w.e.f. 1.4.2014. As per this notification, the daily wages of a driver were fixed at Rs. 244.12 i.e. Rs. 7324/- per month. Thus, the impugned award requires interference and it is held that the monthly wages of deceased could not be assessed less than Rs. 7324/- per month. -7- 16. Since there were three dependents of the deceased, 1/3rd of the income of deceased was liable to be deducted towards his personal expenses. The age of the deceased was proved to be 37 years and thus, incremental increase of 40% on the wages earned by the deceased was liable to be added on account of loss of future prospects. 17. Thus, considering the monthly income of deceased at Rs. 7324/-, an amount of Rs. 2930/- was liable to be added as 40% of the monthly wages towards loss of future prospects. The amount thus arrived at would be Rs. 10,254/-.By making a deduction of 1/3rd i.e. Rs. 3418/-, the monthly dependency would be Rs. 6836/-. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 15 and in this manner, total loss of dependency would be Rs. 6836x12x15 = Rs. 12,30,480/-. 18. Further the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- to claimant No.1 on account of loss of consortium. The compensation awarded under these heads also need to be modified in terms of the judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in -8- National Insurance Company vs. Pranay Sethi 2017 (16) SCC 680and in Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanu Ram, 2018 (18) SCC 130. As per the exposition of law rendered in the aforesaid judgments, all the three claimants would be entitled to loss of consortium at the rate of Rs. 40,000/- each. In addition, they shall be entitled to Rs. 15,000/- each under the heads of loss of estate and funeral expenses. The claimants will also be entitled to increase at the rate of 10% after three years on the compensation awarded under conventional head in terms of Pranay Sethi (supra). Therefore, the claimants will get two increases of 10% each on the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-, which comes out to Rs. 30,000/- 19. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimants is as under:- Sr. No. Heads Calculation 1. Loss of dependency Rs.12,30,480/- 2. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000 x 3= 1,20,000/- 3. Funeral charges Rs. 15,000 4. Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- -9- 5. Enhancement at the rate of 15% Rs. 30,000/- 6. Total Rs. 14,10,480/- 20. In addition, the claimants shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the entire award amount from the date of filing of petition till actual realization or deposit of amount whichever is earlier. 21. The apportionment as made by the learned Tribunal shall remain the same. 22. In light of above analysis, FAO 584 of 2018 is dismissed and FAO 549 of 2019 is allowed. Impugned award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Solan in MAC Petition 2ADJ-II/2 of 2014 shall stand modified to the extent, as detailed hereinabove. 23. The appeals are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back. (Satyen Vaidya) 27th August, 2025 Judge (kck)