1 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.124 of 2014 Reserved on:- 20.06.2026 Date of Decision: 30.06.2026 Uploaded on:- 30.06.2026 Ravinder Kaur and Anr. …Appellants Versus Leela Devi & Ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ____________________________________________________________ For the Appellants : Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.3. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge Appellants have filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 08.01.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No.121-N/2 of 2008, titled as Ravinder Kaur & another versus Leela Devi and others. 2. By way of award dated 08.01.2014, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition, by awarding a sum 2 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) of Rs.4,86,985/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of deposit of amount. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, along with interest, has been fastened upon the ICICI Lambard Motor Insurance Company (respondent No.3). Brief Facts:- 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. 4. Necessary 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-claimants, being parents of Ranjeet Singh, had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, before the learned Tribunal. According to them, their son Ranjeet Singh died in a road side accident, involving Truck No.HR-68-0045, (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) owned by respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 4.2. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that the accident in question had taken place at village Bhoop-Pur, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P., on 27.05.2008, at 3 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) about 3:30 PM. According to them, their son was riding a motorcycle bearing No.HP-17-9778, along with Sunil Kumar son of Ramesh Chand, who was a pillion rider. 4.3. According to them, respondent No.2, was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and near the shop of Mahima Motors Kedarpur, he abruptly turned the offending vehicle towards the right side and thereafter, hit the motorcycle of son of the petitioners, consequently, their son sustained fatal injuries. After the accident, he was taken to Civil Hospital Paonta Sahib. Thereafter, he was further referred to Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust Swami Nagar, Dehradoon, where, he remained admit from 27.05.2008 to 04.06.2008, then, he expired, due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 4.4. It is the case of the petitioners that the police of Paonta Sahib, lodged FIR No.199/2008, dated 27.05.2008. The said FIR is stated to have been lodged, by the police, in connivance with respondents No.1 and 2, on the distorted facts. 4.5. According to the petitioners, their son was about 25 years of age, at the time of his death. He was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, before his death, as he undertook the training of computer hardware and its maintenance from the institute of 4 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) Solan. Thereafter, he has established his own commercial unit, in the name and style of M/s Natural Rubber. 4.6. The claimants have also pleaded about their bright past and bleak future. Since, the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, as such, the claimants have prayed that the claim petition may kindly be allowed, by awarding the compensation to them. 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, by taking the preliminary objection that the claim petition is not maintainable. According to respondents No.1 and 2, during the investigation of FIR No.199 of 2008, dated 27.05.2008, registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, no fault/negligence/rash driving of respondent No.2 was found. 5.2. The very maintainability of the petition has been called into question, on the ground that the same has been filed, on the basis of complaint, filed by the petitioners, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib. The said case is stated to be false. 5 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) 5.3. According to respondents No.1 and 2, son of the petitioners was himself negligent and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any compensation. 5.4. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been contested, by asserting that in FIR No.199 of 2008, the negligence of respondent No.2, was not found. However, the claim petition has been filed on the basis of the private complaint, filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Rest of the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 5.5. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; as Ranjeet Singh had expired on account of his own negligence, while, riding motorcycle. Respondent No.2, driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5.6. Apart from the above, another preliminary objection has been taken that the present claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2. 5.7. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied mainly for want of knowledge. However, according to 6 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) respondent No.3, as per FIR No.199 of 2008, dated 27.05.2008, the accident had taken place, due to negligence of Ranjeet Singh, son of the petitioners. 6. Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 6.1. Petitioners filed rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 24.03.2012: 1). Whether on 27.05.2008 respondent No.2 was driving a truck bearing registration No.HR-68-0045 in rash and negligent manner and at about 3:30 P.M. at village Bhoop-Pur had rammed against the motor cycle bearing registration No.HP-17-9778 of one Shri Ranjeet Singh son of the petitioners?..OPP. 2). If issue No.1, is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners were dependent upon their son Ranjeet Singh, as alleged? ...OPP. 3). If issues No.1 and 2 are proved proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 4). Whether the petition is not maintainable as per averments made in the preliminary objection No.1? OPR- 1 & 2. 5). Whether the petitioner No.1 is not competent to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR-1 & 2. 7 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) 6). Whether the accident had taken place due to the fault of deceased Ranjeet Singh while driving the motor cycle bearing registration No.HP-17-778? OPR-1 & 2. 7). Whether the petition is not maintainable? ..OPR-3. 8). Whether the driver (respondent No.2) of the truck bearing registration No.HR-68-0045 did not possess a valid and effective driving license and truck was being plied without a valid permit in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy? OPR-3. 9). Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 & 2? OPR-3. 10). Relief. 8. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. After closure of the evidence, the learned Tribunal, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, has decided the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.4,86,985/-, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole amount. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon respondent No.3- Insurance Company. Stand of the claimants/appellants before this Court 9. Feeling aggrieved from the award, the claimants have filed the appeal, before this Court, with a prayer to enhance the same, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has completely 8 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) misread and misinterpreted the oral, as well as, documentary evidence. 9.1. According to the appellants, the learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration the established fact that the son of the petitioners was running a Rubber Unit, under the name and style of M/s Natural Rubber and was engaged in manufacturing rubber of high quality and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 9.2. According to the appellants, on the basis of the above facts, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of their son, during his life time, as Rs.15,000/- per month. 9.3. According to the appellants, enhancement on account of future prospects has not been given, as such, they have demanded that 50% addition is required to be given in the income of their son, on account of his future prospects. 9.4. The enhancement of the awarded amount has also been sought, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly applied the multiplier, in the present case, and the same should have been applied in view of the age of their son. They have also claimed interest @ 12% per annum. 9.5. On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants have prayed that the 9 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. Stand of Respondent 10. Per contra, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company (respondent No.3) has supported the award and prayed that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration, all the relevant factors and awarded the amount, which falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’. Analysis and Conclusion 11. In this case, the award passed by the learned Tribunal has only been assailed, by the claimants, as, neither, respondents No.1 & 2, nor, respondent No.3 have filed appeal or cross objections against the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 12. In this admitted factual position, this Court has only to ascertain the fact, whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded to the petitioners, by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of just compensation or not. 13. The endeavour of the Court/Tribunal is to grant just compensation in such like cases. In this case, the son of the petitioners has unfortunately died in a motor vehicle accident. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent decision, titled as The Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Kalu Ram 10 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) and others, reported in (2026) INSC 653, has laid down the principles to determine the compensation, to the parents on account of loss of their child. Relevant paragraphs 21 and 22 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- “21. Though this Court undoubtedly possesses the jurisdiction to interfere where computation results in manifest excess or legal infirmity, the exercise of such power must ultimately subserve the ends of justice. In the facts of the present case, we are of the considered view that reducing the compensation payable to the claimants at this stage on account of what is essentially a technical overlap in the methodology adopted by the Tribunal would not advance the cause of substantive justice. The loss suffered by the parents of the deceased cannot be measured with arithmetical precision, and the compensation awarded, viewed holistically, cannot be said to transgress the bounds of ‘just compensation’ under the MV Act. The beneficial character of the legislation, the long passage of time since the accident, the concurrent assessment made by the Tribunal and the High Court, and the impossibility of placing a precise monetary value upon the loss of a young life, together persuade us not to disturb the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency. Viewed holistically, we are of the considered view that no interference is called for with the compensation awarded towards loss of dependency. 22. It is no doubt true, as we have emphasised in the preceding paragraphs, that the determination of compensation under the MV Act is guided by the principle of awarding ‘just compensation’, which must account for the future prospects of the deceased. At the same time, such determination cannot travel into the realm of conjecture. In the present case, while there was evidence of the stipend being earned by the deceased, no cogent material was placed on record to establish the alleged income from private tuition. Equally, the assertion of the claimants that the deceased would certainly qualify as a Chartered Accountant and thereafter earn substantially higher income remains 11 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) a matter of future uncertainty. Compensation cannot be founded on assumptions of assured professional success or on salary benchmarks of unrelated successful professionals.” Self emphasis supplied 15. Being guided by the above decision, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the fact that the amount of compensation awarded, by the learned Tribunal requires any interference by this Court. 16. The age of son of the petitioners has been pleaded, as 25 years. Petitioner No.2, when, appeared in the witness box, as PW-1 and filed his affidavit, Ex.PW-1/A, has also given the age of his son, as 25 years. As per document Ex.PW-1/B, which is the matriculation examination certificate of Ranjeet Singh, his date of birth has been mentioned, as 24.03.1983. The accident had taken place on 27.05.2008. Thus, his age has rightly been taken by the learned Tribunal, as 25 years. The said finding does not require any interference by this Court. 17. Now, so far as the monthly income/contribution of the son of the petitioners, towards his family, during his life time, is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the income of Ranjeet Singh, during his life time, as Rs.5,000/-, on notional basis. These findings have been assailed by the petitioners. 18. It is the specific case of the petitioners that their son was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, after undergoing the 12 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) training of computer hardware and its maintenance. Thereafter, he had also established his own commercial unit under the name and style of M/s Natural Rubber. This factual position has been reasserted, by petitioner No.2, when, he has appeared, as PW-1 and specifically stated that the income of his son was about Rs.20,000/- per month. 19. In cross examination, by the learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2, this witness has deposed that his son had done B.Ed., from Government College at Nalagarh, affiliated to H.P. University. Thereafter, he has done diploma in computer hardware from Industrial Training Department. 20. In cross examination, by the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, he has admitted that in the firm, M/s Natural Rubber Industries, both his sons were Directors. According to him, the business was recently started, when, his son expired. However, according to him, first bill of Rs.29,400/- was issued only on 23.05.2008. He has also admitted that from the firm Natural Rubber Industry, no income was derived, as the business had recently been started. 21. From the document Ex.PW1/G, petitioners have successfully demonstrated that Ranjeet Singh son of petitioners had obtained the certificate of registration under the Central Sales 13 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) Tax (Registration and Turnover) Rules, 1956 on 21.04.2008, about a month prior to the fateful day when, the son of the petitioners had sustained fatal injuries in a road side accident, involving the offending vehicle and expired. 22. The almighty God has not given enough time to Ranjeet Singh to earn from the industrial establishment i.e. M/s Natural Rubber. Moreover, as per the document Ex.PW1/G, the firm was registered for manufacturing of crump rubber powder, which is a sustainable, granular material produced by recycling end-of-life vehicle tyres, which are shredded, cleaned of steel and fibres and ground into fine particles. This material is used to manufacture rubber mats, shock observant, sports surfaces, playground flooring, synthetic tub. As per the document Mark D, on 23.05.2008, the firm M/s Natural Rubber had issued the bill of Rs.29,400/-. If both the documents are considered, in the light of the future of the industrial unit, set up by the son of the petitioners along with his brother, then, the approach of the learned Tribunal to take the notional income of Ranjeet Singh, as Rs.5,000/- is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 23. Both the sons of the petitioners had established the industrial unit in the name and style of M/s Natural Rubber to 14 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) deal with the manufacturing of crump rubber powder and certainly for this project, huge amount would have been invested by them. 24. Considering all these facts, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met, if, the income of Ranjeet Singh, during his life time would be taken, as 10,000/- per month. 25. Being guided by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017), 16 Supreme Court Case 680, addition, on account of future prospects, is liable to be made, in the monthly income of Ranjeet Singh, during his life time, so that the established income for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, could be ascertained. Since Ranjeet Singh was working in unorganized sector, as such, 40% addition is liable to be made, on account of his future prospects, thus, his total established income comes to Rs.14,000/- per month. He was a bachelor, as such, 50% amount, out of the established income is liable to be deducted, towards personal expenses of Ranjeet Singh, had he been alive. His contribution towards his family, thus, comes to Rs.7,000/-. per month. 26. Keeping in view the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case titled as Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court 15 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) Cases 121, multiplier of 18 is required to be applied in the present case. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, on account of loss of earning capacity of their son, comes to Rs.7,000/-x12x18= Rs.15,12,000/-. 27. In addition to this, in view of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the petitioners are held entitled for the amount of compensation under the conventional heads ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, ‘loss of consortium’, along with 10% increase, after every three years, from 2017, i.e. date of judgment. 28. 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, both the petitioners are held entitled for the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 24, are reproduced as under:- 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Seth(supra) dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is Loss of Consortium. In legal parlance,“consortium” is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’.The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company society, corporation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. 16 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline guidance and training. 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child’s consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parents has lost their minor child, or unmarried son of daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A fe High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under “ loss of consortium”. As laid down in Pranay Sethi. In the preset case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and sister of the deceased, as amount of Rs.40,000/- each for loss of filial consortium. 29. The entitlement of the claimants, thus, is ascertained as under:- 1.Loss of contribution=Rs.15,12,000/- 2.Loss of estate = Rs.19,500/-(Rs.15,000/-+Rs.4500-) 3.Funeral expenses = Rs.19,500/-(Rs.15,000/-+Rs.4500/-) 4.Loss of consortium= Rs.1,04,000/- (Rs.52,000/- x 2) 17 ( 2026:HHC:25619 ) Total= Rs.16,55,000-(Rs.15,12,000/-+ Rs.19,500/-+Rs.19,500/- +Rs.1,04,000/-) 30. The learned Tribunal has rightly granted the interest @ 7.5%, which does not require any interference by this Court, in view of the prevailing rates of interest of the nationalized banks. 31. In view of the above, the amount of compensation is ordered to be enhanced from Rs.4,86,985/- to Rs.16,55,000/-. However the ultimate liability to pay the entire awarded amount has rightly been fastened upon respondent No.3, by the learned Tribunal. 32. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The awarded amount is enhanced, in the above terms. The claimants are held entitled for the amount of Rs.16,55,000/-, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the amount. 33. Memo of costs be prepared. 34. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 35. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge June 30, 2026 (subhash)