( 2026:HHC:22766 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. 4 of 2015 Reserved on : 14.05.2026 Date of decision: 17.06.2026 Date of uploading on website:17.06.2026 ________________________________________________________ National Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Kanta Devi and others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mamta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Tarun K. Sharma, Advocate, respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.4 to 7. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant- National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”), against the award dated 03.09.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kullu District Kullu, H.P., in Claim Petition No.11 of 2014 (2012), with a prayer to set aside/modify the impugned award. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) 2. Succinctly, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondents No.1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners) filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs on account of death of Tanu alias Satpal, who was husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner No.3. It was averred by the petitioners that on the intervening night of 31.12.2011/ 01.01.2012, Tanu alias Satpal, alongwith Hira Lal and Dola Ram, boarded Alto Car bearing registration No.HP49A-0717 from Bathad to Tung, which was being driven by its owner Om Prakash. When the said vehicle reached at Rangcha Nalla curve near Bathad, it hit five persons, sitting on the side of the road on the eve of new year celebration, due to which, all of them had fallen into Palchan Khad at a distance of about 300 metres alongwith the offending vehicle, which had resulted into the death of Tanu alias Satpal. 3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 21 years old and he was dealing in the business of fruits, vegetables, forest herbs morels (guchhies) etc. and was earning more than Rs.12,000/- per month. Besides this, he was also working in his fields and growing vegetables etc. and thereby 3 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) he used to earn additional income. The offending vehicle was owned by deceased Om Prakash and it was insured with National Insurance Company (appellant herein). It was also averred that the deceased was the only earning member in the family and due to his untimely death, the petitioners had suffered a lot of agony, love and affection. Hence, they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.15.00 lacs. 4. In their reply, respondents No.4 to 7, who are the legal heirs of deceased Om Prakash, raised preliminary objection qua maintainability of the claim petition. On merits, it was averred that the accident was caused due to sudden mechanical failure as the steering of the vehicle got locked and front tyre got burst and thereafter, the vehicle fell down the road into Palchan Khad, crushing other persons siting on the side of the road. It was also averred that the driving licence of Om Prakash was lost in Phalchan Khad. 5. Appellant-National Insurance Company, in its reply, raised the preliminary objections regarding want of particulars of the insurance policy, that the driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle was not having any driving licence and also not possessing the valid documents, the vehicle was being plied in 4 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) contravention of MV Act, the accident was caused due to excess persons sitting/traveling in the vehicle, who were in drunken condition. On merits, it was averred that there were nine persons including driver who were sitting in the vehicle. It was also averred that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of deceased Om Parkash and the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation as all the nine persons, sitting in the vehicle, were heavily in drunken condition. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 15.05.2014:- “1. Whether Tanu alias Satpal, predecessor of the petitioners died in the motor vehicular accident on the intervening night of 31.12.2011/01.01.2012 at Rangcha Nala curve near Bathad, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu due to the rash and negligent driving of deceased Om Prakash, driver of vehicle No.HP-49-A-0717, as alleged? ...OPP 2. Whether the petitioners being dependents of deceased Tanu alias Satpal are entitled for compensation, as prayed for? ...OPP 3. Whether the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable? ...OPR-1 to 4. 4. Whether the vehicle in question was not insured with respondent No.5? ...OPR-5. 5. Whether the driving of the offended vehicle at the time of accident was not having driving licence? ...OPR-5. 6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of terms of insurance policy? ...OPR-5 5 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) 7. Whether the present petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No.1 to 4, as alleged? ...OPR-5 8. Relief.” 7. After parties led their evidence, the claim petition was partly allowed and the petitioners were awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.8,52,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum jointly and severally against the respondents from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of the awarded amount by respondent No.5 (appellant herein), who was directed to deposit the awarded amount within one month. 8. Feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied, the appellant/ insurance company preferred the instant appeal against award dated 03.09.2014, passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to set-aside/modify the impugned award. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal below had fallen into error by fastening the liability on the insurance company despite the fact that the accident had occurred on account of acute overloading in serious breach of the policy conditions on the part of owner-driver/insured. He further contended that the successors- in-interest of owner-driver had failed to produce on record any 6 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) driving licence or its particulars, thus, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn that the deceased was not possessing a valid driving licence at the time of the accident in question. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal below and contended that the liability cannot be fastened on respondents No.4 to 7 as the driving licence of deceased Om Prakash was lost in Palchan Khad at the scene of the accident. He further contended that the vehicle in question was not overloaded at the time of the accident. 11. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 3 herein) and learned counsel for respondents No.4 to 7 and also carefully examined the entire record. 12. The first question, which arises for consideration before this Court, is as to whether the vehicle was overloaded at the time of the accident in question. Perusal of Registration Certificate (RC) of the offending vehicle Ext.RW1/B, reveals that the class of vehicle was LMV (Car) and its seating capacity was ‘5’. As per case of the petitioners, on the intervening night of 7 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) 31.12.2011/01.01.2012, the deceased boarded the ill-fated vehicle alongwith Om Prakash (owner of the vehicle), Hira Lal and Dola Ram and when the said vehicle reached at Rangcha Nalla curve near Bathad, its driver lost control over the same, as a result of which, it fell down the road into Palchan Khad, crushing five other persons, who were sitting on the side of the road at the place of the accident. Thus, as per the petitioners, at the time of the accident, deceased Om Prakash was driving the offending vehicle and there were three other persons, namely deceased Tanu alias Satpal, Hira Lal and Dola Ram, who were sitting in the vehicle. In the reply filed on behalf of respondents No.4 to 7, it has been admitted that on the relevant date, the aforesaid three persons had boarded the offending vehicle, which was being driven by deceased Om Prakash. Petitioner No.3, Hukmi Devi, while appearing in the witness-box as PW-4, also deposed that on the relevant date, the deceased was sitting in the vehicle alongwith Dola Ram and Hira Lal, which was being driven by its driver Om Prakash. RW-1 Dolma Devi, widow of Om Prakash, also stated that on the intervening night of 31.12.2011 at about 12:10 AM, her husband Om Prakash, Tanu alias Satpal, Hira Lal and Dola Ram boarded the vehicle in question from her house to the house of 8 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) Tanu alias Satpal. 13. Perusal of the record reveals that there was no eye witness to the accident in question. It is the insurance company, who has taken the plea that the offending vehicle was overloaded, as such, the onus was upon the insurance company to have led the positive evidence that at the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was overloaded. However, no evidence has been led by the insurance company in order to prove that the vehicle was overloaded at the time of the accident. Even nothing has come in the FIR Ext.PW-2/A as well as in the statement of complainant Rakesh Kumar Ext.RW-3/A, recorded under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. to the effect that at the time of accident, nine persons were sitting in the offending vehicle, rather complainant Rakesh Kumar, who lodged the FIR, stated that he saw the offending vehicle only when it was rolling down to Khad from the road and when he alongwith other villagers reached the spot, the dead bodies of Harbans Lal, Hira Lal, Dile Ram, Teja Singh, Khem Chand, Beli Ram, Tanu and Om Prakash, driver and owner of offending vehicle, were found lying on the spot and Dola Ram was found in an injured condition who was taken to the hospital. Not only this, it has come in the statement of PW-3 Raghubir Singh that five 9 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) boys, who were standing on the road, were also knocked down by the offending vehicle and the vehicle alongwith said boys had fallen down in a Khad and thereby caused their death. He further deposed that he did not know how many persons were sitting inside the vehicle. He specifically denied that suggestion that no person was standing on the road when the accident took place. Therefore, in view of the entire evidence on record, it has been proved that deceased Tanu alias Sat Pal, who was sitting in the offending vehicle, died in motor vehicular accident on the intervening night of 31.12.2011/ 01.01.2012 at Rangcha Nala turn near Bathad. Hence, the contention of learned Senior Counsel that at the time of the accident in question, the vehicle was overloaded, cannot be accepted. 14. Now the next question, which arises for consideration, is whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any driving licence. It is admitted case of the parties that predecessor- in-interest of respondents No.4 to 7, namely Om Prakash, was driving the vehicle in question, who happened to be owner of the vehicle. As per case of respondents No.4 to 7, Om Prakash was having a valid and effective driving licence, but the same was lost in Palchan Khad at the scene of accident. 10 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) 15. As per Section 130 of MV Act, the driver of a Motor Vehicle in public place shall, on demand by any police officer in uniform, has to produce his license for examination. By this provision of Section 130 of MV Act, the driver has to keep the license with him while driving the vehicle. Therefore, it does not leave any manner of doubt that deceased Om Prakash had kept his licence with him at the time of the accident. RW-1 Dolma Devi, who was wife of Om Prakash, deposed that her husband was possessing a valid driving licence at the time of accident which was lost in the accident when his dead body was found naked in the Khad after the accident. RW-2 Nikka Bharti categorically deposed that earlier Om Prakash used to drive his vehicle (Mohindra Commander) bearing registration No.HP-49-0090, who at that time was having a valid driving licence. Therefore, the onus was upon the insurance company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 16. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-insurance company vehemently contended that the insurance company had obtained report Ext. R-6 from the Registering and Licensing Authority (RLA) Banjar, District Kullu, HP under Right to 11 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) Information Act, wherein it has been stated that no driving licence has been issued in the name of Shri Om Prakash, resident of Bathad. However, no reliance can be placed upon the report Ext. R-6 as the same has not been proved in accordance with law. It was incumbent upon the appellant-insurance company to have summoned the record from RLA, Banjar and also to have summoned the official, who had given the aforesaid information/ report Ext.R-6. However, for the reasons best known to the appellant/ insurance company, no official from RLA, Banjar was examined by the insurance company. It is settled law that mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. Since Ext. R-6 has not been proved in accordance with law, no reliance can be placed upon it. As it was the case of LRs of owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle that the driving licence was lost at the scene of accident in question, therefore, the insurance company should have issued notice to them to produce driving licence, however, admittedly, no such notice was issued to them. By mere production of certificate Ext.R-6, from the Registering and Licensing Authority (RLA) Banjar, in the absence of its valid proof, it can not be inferred that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the 12 ( 2026:HHC:22766 ) accident. The insurance company has failed to discharge its onus to prove that deceased Om Prakash was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident in question. 17. No other point was urged before me. 18. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, no interference is required in the impugned award dated 03.09.2014, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Kullu District Kullu, HP. Consequently, the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge June 17, 2026 (V. Himalvi)