1 2026:HHC:25622 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MV) No. 296 of 2018 Reserved on : 18.06.2026 Decided on : 30.06.2026 Uploaded on : 30.06.2026 Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Vikram Singh & 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. Rajan Kohal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondents No. 3 and 4. Virender Singh, Judge AppellantShri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd. 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 06.03.2018, passed by learned Motor 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:25622 Accident Claims TribunalII, Kangra at Dharamshala, Circuit Court at Nurpur, District Kangra, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned MACT’), in MACP No. 15N/II/2013, titled as ‘Vikram Singh & Anr. Versus Mangal Singh & Ors.’. 2. By way of the award, dated 06.03.2018, the learned MACT has allowed the petition filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,53,580/, along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of the awarded amount. The ultimate liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon the appellant. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned MACT. STAND OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE LEARNED MACT: 4. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as borne out, from the record, may be summed up, as under: 4.1 The petitioners being sons of Sh. Kewal Singh, have filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 3 2026:HHC:25622 against the respondents being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle bearing No. PB06N2122 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). 4.2 According to the petitioners, on 20.05.2013, their father along with their mother (Sarita Devi alias Sheela Devi) was on the way to Chandigarh in car No. HP38A4984. When the said car reached near Dalebal College main G.T. road, meanwhile the offending vehicle came there, being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, and hit the car, in which the father of the petitioners was travelling. In the said accident, the front portion of the car completely pressed and deceased struck in the car and died instantaneously. 4.3 The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur, where, FIR No. 34/2013, dated 20.05.2013, under Sections 279, 304A, 427 of IPC was registered. Postmortem examination of the dead body of Sh. Kewal Singh was conducted at Civil Hospital Hoshiarpur. Age of Sh. Kewal Singh, at the time of his death 4 2026:HHC:25622 has been pleaded as 65 years and according to the petitioners, their father was earning Rs. 40,000/ per month. 4.4 The petitioners have also pleaded about their past and bright future. Since, the accident has solely been attributed to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, while driving the offending vehicle, as such, a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/ has been claimed, as compensation. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE LEARNED MACT: 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by respondent No. 3 only. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had not opted to put appearance before the learned MACT, to contest the claim petition and both of them were proceeded exparte by learned MACT. 6. Insurance company of the offending vehicle, filed its reply by taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable as the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the same, the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 5 2026:HHC:25622 6.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge, however, it has been specifically denied that the father of the petitioners was earning Rs. 40,000/ per month. 6.2 On the basis of above facts, the insurance company has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Petitioners filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 3, by denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the reply by virtue of which, the claim petition has been contested. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED MACT: 8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned MACT on 04.01.2016: 1. Whether Kewal Singh died in a roadside accident on 20.05.2013 at about 2:00 PM near Dalewal College, Main G.T. Road, Police Station Hariana, District Hoshiarpur (Pb.) due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable? OPR3 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the time of accident? OPR3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR3 6 2026:HHC:25622 6. Relief. 9. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned MACT has allowed the petition, as referred to above, by fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. STAND OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE THIS COURT: 11. Feeling aggrieved from the award, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has preferred the present appeal. The award has been assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has not considered the fact that both the petitioners are major and married sons of the deceased and cannot be said to be dependent upon the deceased. Highlighting the fact that in the absence of the dependency of the petitioners, they are only entitled to loss of love and affection. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly taken the income of Kewal Singh as Rs. 30,589/ per month, whereas, in the absence of documentary proof, the same should have been 7 2026:HHC:25622 taken on the basis of minimum wages prevailing in the year 2013. The multiplier, which, has been applied by the learned MACT is also stated to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Lastly, the award has been assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum, whereas the same should have been 6% per annum. 13. On the basis of above facts, Sh. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed by reducing the amount of compensation, as awarded to the petitioners. 14. Per contra, it has been argued by Sh. Rajan Kohal, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners that the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced so the same should fall within the definition of “just compensation”. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: 15. It is no longer resintegra that the efforts of the Court/Tribunal should be to award ‘just compensation’ in the claim petitions. 8 2026:HHC:25622 16. The award, in the present case, has been assailed on the ground that both the petitioners were not dependent upon Sh. Kewal Singh. Petitioner No. 2 Bhupinder Singh, when appeared in the witness box as PW2, had filed his duly sworn affidavit Ext. PW2/A. He admitted in the cross examination that he, as well as, his brother, petitioner No. 1, are married and working in private company. According to him, he was earning Rs. 4000 – 5000/ per month, whereas his brother is also earning the similar amount. However, he has denied that he and petitioner No. 1, were not dependent upon their father. 17. In this admitted factual position, the stand, as taken by the learned counsel for the appellant, qua the fact that the petitioners being the married sons and gainfully employed, are not entitled for the compensation, is liable to be negated, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Birender and others, (2020) 11 Supreme Court Cases 356”. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the sons, who are married and gainfully employed are 9 2026:HHC:25622 entitled for the compensation. Relevant paragraphs 10, 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, 14 and 17 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “10. We have heard Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant) and Ms Abha R. Sharma, learned counsel for Respondents 1 and 2. The principal issues which arise for our consideration are as follows: 10.1 (I) Whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”)? 10.2 (ii) Whether such legal representatives are entitled only for compensation under the conventional heads? 10.3 (iii) Whether the amount receivable by the legal representatives of the deceased under the 2006 Rules is required to be deducted as a whole or only portion thereof? xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx 14. It is thus settled by now that the legal representatives of the deceased have a right to apply for compensation. Having said that, it must necessarily follow that even the major married and earning sons of the deceased being legal representatives have a right to apply for compensation and it would be the bounden duty of the Tribunal to consider the application irrespective of the fact whether the legal representative concerned was fully dependent on the deceased and not to limit the claim towards conventional heads only. The evidence on record in the present case would suggest that the claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs. 1,00,000 and Rs. 1,50,000 per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependent on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17. The view so taken by the High Court is not the correct reading of the decision of threeJudge Bench of this Court in Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Shashi Sharma, 10 2026:HHC:25622 (2016) 9 SCC 627, for more than one reason. First, this Court was conscious of the fact that under Rule 5(2) of the 2006 Rules, the family pension receivable by the family would be payable, however, only after the period, during which the financial assistance is received, is completed. In that context, in para 24 of the reported decision, the Court clearly noted that the amount towards family pension cannot be deducted from the claim amount for determination of a just compensation under the Act. Further, the High Court has erroneously assumed that the family of the deceased would be entitled for family pension amount immediately after the death of the deceased employee. That is in the teeth of the scheme of the 2006 Rules, in particular Rule 5(2) thereof. The said Rules provide for financial assistance on compassionate grounds, as also, other benefits to the family members of the deceased employee and as a package thereof, Rule 5(2) stipulates that the family pension as per the normal rules would be payable to the family members only after the period of delivery of financial assistance is completed. The validity of this provision is not put in issue. Suffice it to say that the view taken by the High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Ajmero, 2017 SCC OnLine P&H 5370 is a departure from the scheme envisaged by the 2006 Rules, in particular, Rule 5(2). That cannot be countenanced.” “Self emphasis supplied” 18. The above view has again been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “Seema Rani and others Versus Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2025 ACJ 338”. Relevant paragraph 9 of the judgment, is reproduced, as under: “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the Tribunal (sic High Court) on the dependants of the deceased. This court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Birender, 2020 SCJ 759 (SC), had expounded that major married and earning sons of the deceased, being legal representatives, have a right to apply for compensation, and the Tribunal 11 2026:HHC:25622 must consider the application irrespective of whether the representatives are fully dependent on the deceased or not. The court went on to conclude that since the sons, in that case, were earning merely Rs. 1,50,000 per annum, they were largely dependent on the earnings of the deceased and were staying with her.” (Self emphasis supplied) 19. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, although both the petitioners are working in private sector and earning meager amount of Rs. 60,000/ per annum are entitled for the compensation. Hence, the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellantInsurance Company is liable to be rejected. 20. PW2 has categorically stated, in his statement, that their father used to lookafter their family and both of them were dependents upon him. 21. Thus, mainly on the ground that both the petitioners are married and are working, does not disentitle them from claiming the compensation, in the present case. 22. The Insurance Company, in the present case, has also assailed the findings of the learned MACT, by virtue of which, the income of Sh. Kewal Singh has been taken as Rs. 30,589/ per month. As per the evidence so adduced, Sh. 12 2026:HHC:25622 Kewal Singh, was about 65 years and retired from Indian Army. The petitioners have produced the Income tax return for the assessment year 20122013, Ext. PW3/A. As per this document, the annual income of Sh. Kewal Singh, in the said assessment year was Rs. 3,43,658/. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680”, the tax component is liable to be deducted out of the income of the deceased and as per document Ext. PW3/A, the tax of Rs. 9,659/ is liable to be deducted. Thus, the annual income of Sh. Kewal Singh Pathania, during his life time, comes to Rs. 3,33,999/, i.e. Rs. 27,833.25/ per month. 23. Keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3rd amount, out of the total contribution of Sh. Kewal Singh is liable to be deducted, on account of personal expenses, had he been alive, which comes to Rs. 18,556/ per month (Rs. 27,833.25/ minus Rs. 9,277/). His monthly contribution, thus comes to Rs. 18,556/ per month. 13 2026:HHC:25622 24. The age of Sh. Kewal Singh Pathania, at the time of accident, has been pleaded as 65 years. As per the income tax return, the date of birth of Sh. Kewal Singh Pathania was 10.04.1947. Meaning thereby, at the time of accident, i.e. on 20.05.2013, he was 66 years old. As such, in view of the law laid down in “Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corportation, 2009 (6) SCC 121”, ‘5’ is the appropriate multiplier, which has rightly been applied, in the present case. Thus, the compensation, under the head of ‘Loss of contribution’ comes to Rs. 18,556/ x 12 x 5 = Rs. 11,13,360/. 25. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), in addition to this, the petitioners are entitled for compensation under the heads, ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’, with 10% increase, after every three years, from the date of judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case i.e. from the year 2017. 26. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in 14 2026:HHC:25622 (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, both the petitioners are held entitled for the amount of loss of consortium. The relevant paras 21 to 24 of the judgment are reproduced, as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi 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 husbandwife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 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. 15 2026:HHC:25622 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world over 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 parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or 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 few 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 (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 27. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 11,13,360/ 16 2026:HHC:25622 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,04,000/ (Rs. 40,000 x 2 + Rs. 24,000/) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 19,500/ (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 4,500/) 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 19,500/ (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 4,500/) _________________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 12,56,360/. ________________________________________________________ 28. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners with a view to grant just compensation, thus comes to Rs. 12,56,360/. 29. The learned MACT has awarded the rate of interest to the petitioners at the rate of 8% per annum, which according to the considered opinion of this Court is liable to be reduced and consequently, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 30. However, the learned MACT has rightly fastened the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, along with uptodate interest, on the Insurance Company (respondent No.3), with whom, the offending vehicle was, admittedly, insured, at the time of accident. 32. No other point has been urged or argued. 17 2026:HHC:25622 31. No other point has been urged or argued. 32. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 12,53,580/ to Rs. 12,56,360/, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of award amount. 33. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 34. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. 35. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 30th June, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)

SHRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD v. VIKRAM SINGH AND OTHERS

Judgment text