1 2026:HHC:23592 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO (MV)   No. :  506 of 2018 Reserved  on     :  15.06.2026 Decided on       :   20.06.2026 Uploaded on     :    20.06.2026 IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company …Appellant Versus Najma Begum and Others …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents      : Mr.   Tara   Singh   Chauhan,   Senior Advocate with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Diwakar Dev Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.4. None for respondent No.5. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge Appellant­IFFCO   TOKIO   General   Insurance Company Limited has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 10.07.2018, passed by the learned   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal­I,   Solan,   H.P., (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘learned   Tribunal’),   in   M.A.C. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:23592 Petition No.4­S/2 of 2015, titled as Najma Begum and Others versus Akash Sharma & Others. 2. By way of award dated 10.07.2018, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, filed by respondents No.1 to 3 and awarded a sum of Rs.16,27,000/­ along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the realization/deposit of the amount. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, along with interest, has been fastened upon the Insurance Company (appellant). 3. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   parties   to   the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned Tribunal. Brief Facts:­ 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeal, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1. The petitioners, being mother, father and sister of Amir Ahmad, had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of   M.V.   Act,   before   the   learned   Tribunal,   against   the respondents,   being   owner,   driver   and   insurer   of   vehicle No.HP52­0678, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). 3 2026:HHC:23592 4.2. According to the petitioners, Amir Ahmad was travelling in the offending vehicle on the intervening night of 29/30th November, 2014. At about 12.30 a.m. in the midnight, when   the   offending   vehicle   reached   near   Kali   Mata   Mandir Shamti Rajgarh Road, Solan, then, the said vehicle collided with a Tipper, parked on the hill side of the road. 4.3. In the accident Amir Ahmad sustained multiple fractures   over   his   skull   bones. He   was   taken   to   Regional Hospital,   Solan,   where,   he   was   declared   dead. Postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted by the Medical Officer, Regional Hospital Solan, District Solan H.P. 4.4. The matter was also reported to the police of Police   Station,   Solan,   where,   FIR   No.270,   dated   30.11.2014, under Sections 279, 337 and 304­AA IPC, has been registered, against respondent No.2. 4.5. According to the petitioners, Amir Ahmad was 22 years of age and was working with Mona Lisa Garments, Mohan   Complex   Upper   Bazar   Solan,   District   Solan   and   was earning   Rs.17,000/­   per   month,   along   with   all   incentives/ commissions. 4.6. Since, the accident, in question, has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, 4 2026:HHC:23592 as   such,   the   petitioners   have   sought   an   amount   of Rs.30,00,000/­, along with interest, as compensation from the respondents, by pleading their bright past and bleak future. Stand of the respondents before the learned Tribunal 5. When,   put   to   notice,   the   claim   petition   has been contested by the respondents. 5.1. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint reply,   in   which,   they   have   denied   the   contents   of   the   claim petition, mainly for want of knowledge. The factum of accident has been admitted, but the allegations, which have been levelled against the driver, have been denied by them. 5.2. Elaborating   their   stand,   it   has   been   pleaded that   respondent   No.2   had   tried   his   level   best   to   avoid   the accident, but the tipper was parked at the sharp curve on the wrong side of the road. According to respondents No.1 and 2, the accident in question had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the tipper. 6. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; the offending vehicle was being   plied,   in   violation   of   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the insurance   policy;   and   respondent   No.2,   i.e.,   driver   of   the 5 2026:HHC:23592 offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective license, at the time of accident. 6.1. On   merits,   the   contents   of   the   claim   petition have   been   denied   mainly   for   want   of   knowledge,   however, registration of the FIR has not been disputed. 7. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 23.11.2015: 1) Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No.2 and the deceased died in the said accident? OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so what amount and from whom? OPP 3). Whether   the   driver   of   the   vehicle   in   question was   not   holding   valid   and   effective   driving license at the time of accident. If so its effect? OPR­3 4) Whether the vehicle in question was being plied without   valid   documents   and   in   violation   of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. If so its effect? OPR­3 5) Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR­3 6) Whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties? OPR­3 6 2026:HHC:23592 7) Whether   the   deceased   was   travelling   as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle in question. If so its effect? OPR­3 8) Relief. 9. Thereafter,   parties   to   the   lis   were   directed   to adduce evidence. 10. After   closure   of   the   evidence,   the   learned Tribunal,   upon   hearing   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   has allowed the claim petition of the petitioners, by awarding the compensation, as referred to above. Contentions of the appellant (Insurer­Company) 11. Aggrieved   from   the   said   award,   the   present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, before this Court, mainly, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has passed   the   award   merely   on   the   basis   of   surmises   and conjectures, without appreciating the evidence, so adduced, as, there is no evidence on the file to prove that Amir Ahmad was earning Rs.10,000/­ per month. 11.1. According to the appellant, the salary certificate Ex.PW­5/A, has been proved by a person, who is not the owner of the Mona Lisa Garments at Solan and he is father of Gaurav Sahani, who appeared as PW­6. 7 2026:HHC:23592 11.2. The   award   has   further   been   assailed   on   the ground that in the absence of any documentary proof, learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of Shri Amir Ahmad as Rs.10,000/­ per month, whereas, the same is required to be taken on the basis of the minimum  wages, prevalent  at the relevant time, i.e., in the year 2014. According to the appellant, the minimum wages of unskilled labourer, at that time, was not more than Rs.170/­ per day. 11.3. The   award   has   also   been   assailed   on   the ground that the learned Tribunal has also not considered the fact that the deceased had studied upto 5th or 6th standard and no one will pay Rs.10,000/­ per month, to a person, whose educational qualification was upto 5th or 6th standard. 12. On the basis of the above grounds of appeal, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, has prayed that   the   appeal   may   kindly   be   allowed   and   the   amount   of compensation may kindly be reduced. Contentions   of   learned   Counsel   for   the   respondents (petitioners before the Tribunal) 13. Per contra, Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate, has supported the award and prayed that the awarded amount may 8 2026:HHC:23592 kindly   be   enhanced,   so   that   the   same   could   fall   within   the definition of ‘just compensation’. Discussion and Analysis 14. It is no longer res integra that the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, should be to grant ‘just compensation’ as the M.V. Act, is beneficial piece of legislation. Moreover, the proceedings under the M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed   on   the   basis   of   touch   stone   of   preponderance   of   the probability. 15. Now,   this   Court   would   proceed   further   to ascertain the fact whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to the petitioners, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not. 16. It is worth while to mention here that the award has only been assailed by the Insurance Company and not by the petitioners, but, this does not bar the Court to grant ‘just compensation’,   even   in   the   absence   of   any   appeal   or   cross­ objection, filed by the petitioners. 17. The age of the deceased Amir Ahmad, at the time of his death has been pleaded as 22 years. In the postmortem report Ex.PW­1/A, same age has been mentioned. As such, in 9 2026:HHC:23592 the absence of any evidence, there is no occasion for this Court to take age of the deceased contrary to the same. Learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age of deceased as 22 years, at the time of his death. Admittedly, he was bachelor. 18. In   this   case,   the   Insurance   Company   has assailed the findings of the learned Tribunal qua the income of the deceased during his life time. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of deceased as Rs.10,000/­ per month. The petitioners in their petition has pleaded the income of deceased Amir Ahmad, during his life time, as   Rs.17,000/­ per month. According to them, he was working as salesman with Mona Lisa Garments, upper Bazar Solan, Tehsil and District Solan. 19. Since,   the   onus   was   upon   the   petitioners   to prove the income of the deceased, during his life time, as such, the mother of Amir Ahmad, appeared in the witness­box and tendered   his   affidavit   Ex.PW­4/A,   in   which,   she   has   again asserted the fact that her son was working as salesman with Mona Lisa Garments and was earning Rs.17,000/­. According to her, this amount includes his monthly salary and incentives. When   a   suggestion   was   given   to   her   that   her   son   was   not earning Rs.17,000/­, by working as Salesman, the same has been denied by petitioner No.1. 10 2026:HHC:23592 20. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for respondent No.3, petitioner No.1 has admitted that her son had studied upto 5th­6th standard. 21. In   addition   to   this,   the   petitioners   have examined   Sita   Ram   Sahani,   as   PW­5,   who   has   categorically stated that Amir Ahmad was working as salesman with him and he has proved the salary certificate Ex.PW­5/A.   According to this witness, Amir Ahmad worked with them for about two years i.e., from 2012 to 2014. The accident, in question, had taken place, in the intervening night of 29/30.11.2014. 22. In the opening of his cross­examination, this witness has admitted that shop, in which, Amir Ahmad was working as salesman, was in the name of his son. Certificate Ex.PW­5/A bears his signatures. However, he has admitted that he is neither the proprietor, nor, has been authorized to issue Ex.PW­5/A. 23. PW­6   Gaurav   Sahani,   who   is   son   of   PW­5, deposed that he is proprietor of Mona Lisa Garments. He has categorically stated that certificate Ex.PW­5/A has been issued, which bears signature of his father. As stated above, the claim petition is decided on the basis of touch stone of probability and the proceedings under the M.V.Act are summary in nature. 11 2026:HHC:23592 24. The arguments of Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/appellant, qua the   fact   that   it   cannot   be   expected   from   a   person   to   earn Rs.17,000/­ per month, as pleaded in the claim petition or to earn Rs.10,000/­, as held by learned Tribunal, are devoid of merits, as no universal yardstick can be fixed that a person, who had studied upto 5th­6th standard, can not earn Rs.10,000/­ per month. It depends upon the skills of an individual. 25. Merely, because the person, who has issued the certificate, deposed that he was not owner of the shop, does not make the said certificate inadmissible. Owner, when appeared, in the witness­box, as PW­6, also supported the version of his father   PW­5. Shop/establishment   of   PW­6,   has   duly   been registered   with   the   Department   of   Excise   and   Taxation,   as depicted from the document Ex.PW­6/A.  As such, this Court is of   the   view   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   rightly   taken   the income   of   deceased   Amir   Ahmad   as   Rs.10,000/­. The   said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 26. Deceased   Amir   Ahmad   was   working   in unorganized   sector   and   in   view   of   the   decision   of   Hon’ble Supreme   Court   in  National   Insurance   Company   Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, addition 12 2026:HHC:23592 of 40% on the   established   income is required to be given on account   of   future   prospects. Thus,   his   monthly   income   for determining the amount of compensation comes to Rs.14,000/­ (Rs.10,000/­ + Rs.4,000/­). 27. Admittedly,   deceased   Amir   Ahmad   was bachelor. As such, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarla  Verma  versus  Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, 50% of his income is liable to be deducted, towards his personal expenses, had   he   been   alive. Thus,   his   monthly   income   comes   to Rs.7,000/­ per month. 28. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier, in   view   of   the   decision   of   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Sarla Verma’s case supra. Thus, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the amount of Rs.15,12,000/­ on account of loss of contribution. 29. In the present case, the learned Tribunal, has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.1,00,000/­ under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay Sethi’s, case supra, the petitioners are only 13 2026:HHC:23592 entitled to compensation under the conventional heads, namely, ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’. The increase   of   10%,   after   every   three   years,   has   also   been mandated. 30. In   view   of   the   decision   of   Hon’ble   Supreme Court   in  Magma   General   Insurance   Company   Limited  vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, all the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 31. The   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   thus,   is ascertained as under:­ 1. Loss of contribution  = `15,12,000/­ 2. Loss of estate = `19,500/­ (`15,000/­ + `4500/­) 3. Funeral expenses = `19,500/­ (`15,000/­ + `4500/­) 4. Loss of consortium  = `1,56,000/­(`40,000x3+ `36,000/­) Total =`17,07,000/­(`15,12,000 + `19,500 +`19,500+ `1,56,000) 32. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. The   awarded   amount   is   enhanced   from  `16,27,000/­   to `17,07,000/­. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 14 2026:HHC:23592 33. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified, in the above terms. 34. Memo of costs be prepared. 35. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge June 20, 2026(ps)