Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MV) No.166 of 2013 Reserved on: 30.05.2026 Date of decision: 04.06.2026 Date of uploading on website: 04.06.2026 ________________________________________________ Goswami Parivahan …..Appellant. Versus Smt. Neelam & others …..Respondents. ________________________________ ________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Ram Lal, Advocate. For respondent No. 2: Ms. Kamlesh Kumari, Advocate, vice Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 3: Mr. Saurav Upadhayay, Advocate, vice Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No. 4: Ex parte. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant-Goswami Parivahan (owner of bus No. HP-39- 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 2 7398), who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 17.01.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioner-claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and she was held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.1,68,330/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e., Goswami Parivahan and Arun Kumar @ Naunoo (driver of No.HP-39-7398), respectively. 2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the petitioner/claimant on 08.06.2008 boarded bus No. HP- 39-7398 (offending vehicle) at Dari for Zonal Hospital Dharamshala and when the said bus, around 12:05 p.m., reached Zonal Hospital Dharamshala, she requested the conductor to stop the bus, consequently the bus was stopped. As per the petitioner, the conductor of the bus also alighted and when she was alighting from the bus, the driver Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 3 of the bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, she fell down and became unconscious. She suffered multiple grievous injuries, including fracture in her right leg. She averred that due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, i.e., Shri Arun Kumar (respondent No. 2), the accident occurred. The petitioner was provided first aid at Government Zonal Hospital, Dharamshala, thereafter she was referred to Dr. RPGMC Hospital, Tanda, where she remained admitted w.e.f. 08.06.2008 to 19.06.2008 and spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment. At the time of the aforesaid accident, the petitioner was 34 years of age and she used to do agricultural and labour work, besides being a house wife and was earning approximately Rs.7000/- per month. After the accident, the petitioner became permanently disabled to perform domestic agricultural and labour work. The petitioner sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3. Owner of the offending vehicle, i.e., respondent No. 1 contested the petition by filing reply, wherein he took preliminary objection of mis-joinder and non-joinder of the necessary parties, as respondent No. 2-Arun Kumar was not employed as driver by him. He admitted the registration of Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 4 FIR against respondent No. 2 and averred that he had appointed Shri Joginder Singh as driver of the offending vehicle, who without the permission of respondent No. 1, had given the offending vehicle for driving to respondent No. 2, as Joginder had to attend some urgent work on that day. As per the replying respondent, accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner herself. 4. Respondent No. 2 Arun Kumar averred that he was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and a false case was registered against him just to get frivolous claim. 5. Respondent No. 3-National Insurance Company filed its separate reply, wherein it was averred that neither respondent No. 2 had valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time nor respondent No. 1 took steps to check and verify the genuineness of the driving licence of respondent No. 2, while he engaged him as driver, thus respondent No. 1 had willfully violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 6. During the pendency of the claim petition before the learned Tribunal below, petitioner got impleaded respondent No. 4, i.e., Joginder Singh, who in his reply Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 5 averred that he was appointed as driver by respondent No. 1 and on the relevant day he was driving the offending vehicle. He further averred that when the offending vehicle reached Yol Cantt, due to some unavoidable circumstances, he gave the bus to Arun Kumar, who was known to him and who also used to drive the buses of others. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner herself. 7. The petitioner filed rejoinders, wherein averments made in the petition were reiterated and claim of the respondents was denied. 8. On 16.02.2011 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the injured suffered injuries due to the rash & negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HP-39-7398, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-1 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle, did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle was being plied in- violation to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 6 6. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action and the petition is not maintainable as alleged? OPR-1 to 4 7. Relief.” 9. After the parties led their evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal below and the petitioner/claimant was held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.1,68,330/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondents 1 and 2, i.e, owner and driver (Arun Kumar) of the offending vehicle, respectively, from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 07.11.2008, till realization of the entire amount. 10. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant- Goswami Parivahan (owner of the offending vehicle) preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 17.01.2013, with prayer to allow the instant appeal by quashing and setting-aside the impugned award. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, learned vice counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 and carefully examined the entire records. Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 7 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below had erred in fastening the liability on the appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle in question by giving erroneous finding that the driver of the vehicle Arun Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 13. Conversely, the learned counsel/vice counsel for respondents No. 1 and 3 supported the impugned award and contended that the impugned award is the result of proper appreciation of both facts and law and the appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel/vice counsel for respondents No. 1 and, learned vice counsel for respondent No. 3 and carefully examined the entire record. 15. There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner/claimant (respondent No. 1 herein) received multiple grievous injuries while she was alighting from the offending vehicle due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, i.e., Shri Arun Kumar (respondent No. 2 herein). It is Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 8 also the admitted case of the appellant, who is the owner of the offending vehicle in question that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2-Arun Kumar. However, the case of the appellant is that he had not employed Arun Kumar as driver, but had employed Joginder Singh (respondent No. 4 herein) as driver of the offending vehicle in question, who without his permission had handed over the vehicle for driving to respondent No. 2-Arun Kumar, as he had to attend some urgent work on that day. 16. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Joginder Singh had handed over the offending vehicle to Arun Kumar without his authorization and since Joginder Singh was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, no liability can be fastened upon him, being owner of the offending vehicle. In support of his case, he also placed reliance upon the following judgments: “1. PEPSU Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217; 2. IFFCO Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Geeta Devi & others; AIR 2023 Supreme Court 5545; Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 9 3. Hind Samachar Limited (Delhi Unit) vs. National Insurance Company Limited & others, (2026) 2 SCC 773; & 4. Praveen & another vs. Chetan Sood & others, Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 162.” 17. After the perusal of the entire material available on record, it is revealed that in his reply before the ld. Tribunal below, the appellant had stated that the vehicle was handed over by Joginder Singh to Arun Kumar, as he had to attend some urgent work, however, in his deposition as RW- 1 before the Court, Pawan Goswami had stated that due to sudden illness of Joginder Singh, he had handed over the vehicle to Arun Kumar. In reply filed on behalf of Joginder Singh also, he had stated that the offending vehicle was handed over by him to Arun Kumar due to some unavoidable circumstances, but while appearing in the witness-box as RW-2 he had deposed that due to sudden illness, he had handed over the vehicle to Arun Kumar. Thus, the statements of both RW-1 Pawan Goswami, owner of the vehicle, and RW-2 Joginder Singh, are contrary to the pleadings and are nothing but falsehood. No medical certificate of Joginder Singh has been annexed in order to show that he had developed sudden illness on the date of the accident and due to this fact he had to hand over the offending vehicle to Arun Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 10 Kumar. Thus their statements do not inspire confidence and appear to be an afterthought 18. It is the admitted case of the appellant that at the time of the accident Arun Kumar was driving the offending vehicle in question. There is nothing on record to show that he was having valid and effective driving licence during the relevant period. From the perusal of the entire evidence on record, it cannot be said that the appellant had exercised due and reasonable care and the learned Tribunal below has rightly come to the conclusion that the act of Joginder Singh’s handing over the vehicle to Arun Kumar at the relevant time is to be construed to be with his holding an implied authorization of the owner. There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle was handed over by Joginder Singh to Arun Kumar without the authorization of the appellant. Therefore, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. As observed earlier, the offending vehicle was being driven by Arun Kumar, who was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, the learned Tribunal below did not commit any error in fastening the liability on the appellant, i.e., owner of the offending Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:21853 ) 11 vehicle as the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 19. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, no interference is required in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below. The instant appeal, which sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. [[[[[[[[[ ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 4th June, 2026 (virender)