1 2026:HHC:9662 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO No. 541 of 2017 Reserved on  : 24.03.2026 Decided on : 31.03.2026 Kamaljeet ...Appellant Versus Parveen and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.   Rajni   Gandhi,   Advocate, vice   Mr.   Rajiv   Rai,   Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr.   Tarun   Brakta,   Advocate, vice   Mr.   Atharv   Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Ms.   Devyani   Sharma,   Senior Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Virender Singh, Judge. Claimant­Kamaljeet has filed the present appeal under   Section   173   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), with a prayer to modify the enhance the award dated 01.04.2016, passed by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:9662 learned   Motor   Accident   Claim   Tribunal,   Bilaspur,   H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in MAC Case No. 3/2 of 2014, titled as “Kamaljeet Versus Parveen and others”. 2. 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. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:­ 3.1. Claimant filed the petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. HP01H­1444. The claimant has filed the petition due to the fact that on 25.05.2013, he was pillion rider on scooter No. HP22A­5632, which was being driven   by   Rakesh   Kumar. They   were   on   their   way   from Hamirpur to Nadoun and when reached near DAV School Salashi, at about 7:50 pm, then respondent No. 2 came there while driving vehicle No. HP01H­1444 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooter driven by Rakesh Kumar. Consequently, the claimant sustained multiple injuries, as well as, also suffered 3 2026:HHC:9662 compound   fractures   on   his   right   leg. The   information regarding   the   accident   was   given   to   Police   Station   Sadar, where case has been registered against respondent  No. 2. After   the   accident,   the   claimant   was   taken   to   hospital   at Hamirpur, from where he was referred to PGI Chandigarh, where, he remained admit as indoor patient. 3.2 According   to   the   claimant,   he   has   suffered disability  in  this accident. Since, the  accident  has  taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as such, a prayer has been made to allow the petition, by awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. One crore, to the claimant. 4. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 4.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply by taking the preliminary   objection   that   the   learned   MACT   has   no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter, as the accident had taken place within the jurisdiction of MACT Hamirpur. 4.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition qua the accident has not been disputed. Rest of the contents 4 2026:HHC:9662 have been denied. However, he has denied that respondent No.   2   was   rash   and   negligent   while   driving   the   offending vehicle. 4.3 In his reply, respondent No. 2 has denied the fact of accident. Rest of the contents have been denied for want of knowledge. 4.4 Insurance   company­respondent   No.   3,   has   filed the separate reply by taking the preliminary objections that the   claim   petition   is   not   maintainable,   vehicle   was   being permitted to drive in violation to the terms and conditions of the   insurance   policy,   driver   was   not   having   a   valid   and effective driving licence, the petition is bad for non­joinder and mis­joinder of necessary parties, as driver, owner and insurer of scooter bearing No. HP22A­5632 have not been impleaded. 4.5 On   merits,   contents   of   the   claim   petition   have been denied, mainly, for want of knowledge. 5. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   the   learned Tribunal, had framed the following issues, vide order dated 24.02.2015:­ 5 2026:HHC:9662 1. Whether on 25.05.2013 at about 7:50 pm near DAV School   Salashi,   petitioner   sustained   injuries   on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver of car No. HP01H­1444? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 above is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR­3 4. Whether   the   petition   is   bad   for   non­joinder   of necessary parties? OPR­3 5. Whether   the   offending   vehicle   was   being   driven without any valid documents? OPR­3 6. Whether respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence? OPR­3 7. Relief. 6. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to lead evidence. 7. After the closure of the evidence, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the petition, by awarding a sum of Rs. 13,23,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till payment, to the claimant by fastening the liability upon respondent No. 3, being insurer of vehicle No. HP01H­1444. 8. Aggrieved   from   the   amount   of   compensation, awarded to the claimant, he has preferred the present appeal 6 2026:HHC:9662 before   this   Court,   seeking   the   enhancement   of   amount   of compensation. The award has been sought to be enhanced mainly on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly concluded that the petitioner was not earning the amount of Rs. 30,000/­ per month and his income has been wrongly taken as Rs. 6,000/­ per month, whereas, according to the claimant, he has proved the fact on the record that he was skilled   worker   and   working   as   a   painter   and   earning   Rs. 13,000/­   per   month. The   learned   MACT   had   rightly concluded   that   the   claimant   had   suffered   40%   physical disability, but on account of said disability, the functioning disability should have been 100%, in the present case. 9. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Ms. Veena Sharma, Advocate appearing for the claimant has prayed that the award amount may kindly be enhanced, on the basis of submissions made above. 10. The   prayer,   so   made,   by   learned   Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant has been opposed by Ms. Rajni Gandhi, Advocate, vice Mr. Rajiv Rai, Advocate, for respondent No. 1, as well as, Mr. Tarun Brakta, Advocate, 7 2026:HHC:9662 vice Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2 and Ms. Devyani   Sharma,   Senior   Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr. Anirudh   Sharma,   Advocate,   for   respondent   No.   3,   on   the ground   that   the   evidence   so   adduced   has   rightly   been considered   by   learned   MACT   and   the   learned   MACT   has rightly   passed   the   award   and   the   appeal   may   kindly   be dismissed. 11. Primary   purpose   of   the   Court   is   to   grant   just compensation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987, has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court should be to provide “just compensation” to the claimants. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under:­ “23. Both,   the   1923   Act   and   1988   Act   are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for pay­ ment   of   compensation   to   the   workmen employed   by   the   employers   and/or   by   use   of motor   vehicle   by   the   owner   thereof   and/or   the insurer   to   the   petitioners   suffering   permanent disability. The   amount   of   compensation   is   to   be determined   in   terms   of   the   provisions   of   the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, 8 2026:HHC:9662 the   Commissioner   who   is   a   quasi   judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors   laid   down   in   the   Act   for   the   purpose   of determining   the   compensation,   Section   168   of   the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award de­ termining   the   amount   of   compensation   which appears to be just. 24. Both   the   Acts   aim   at   providing   for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benfits thereof   are  available   only  to  the  persons  specified under   the   Act   besides   under   the   Contract   of Insurance. The   statutes,   therefore,   deserve   liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (self emphasis supplied) 12. Being   guided   by   the   above   decision,   now,   this Court would proceed further that whether the learned MACT has awarded ‘just compensation’ or not. In order to ascertain the said fact, it would be just and appropriate to discuss the evidence,   so   adduced   by   the   claimant,   before   the   learned MACT. 13. Claimant Kamaljeet has taken the stand that the accident had taken place on 25.05.2013 at 7:50 pm and he was taken to Civil Hospital Hamirpur, where he remained till 10:00 pm and thereafter, taken to PGI Chandigarh, where he 9 2026:HHC:9662 remained   admit   as   indoor   patient   till   28.05.2013   and   on 10.10.2013, he was again admitted at PGI Chandigarh and remained   admit   till   25.10.2013. Operation   was   also conducted and as such, according to him, he was forced to spent   Rs. 10,00,000/­   on   his   treatment,   including   taxi charges and medicines etc. 14. In order to prove the said fact, the claimant has examined   PW­2,   Babu   Ram   Majhol,   who   is   a   registered contractor and executing the work awarded to him by PWD and I&PH Departments. Kamaljeet was working as painter­ cum­supervisor with him. On 01.01.2010, an agreement had been   executed   between   Kamaljeet   and   this   witness,   with regard to his work with him as painter­cum­supervisor. This witness has proved the same as Ext. PW2/A.  He used to pay Rs. 12,000/­ per month to Kamaljeet and in the year 2013, he had started paying a sum of Rs. 13,000/­ per month. In this   regard,   he   has   issued   the   certificate   Ext. PW2/B. According to this witness, after the accident, which had taken place on 25.05.2013, Kamaljeet had not attended his duties. 10 2026:HHC:9662 14.1 In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has deposed that he is working as contractor from the year 1979 and has proved the licence, which is valid upto 31.03.2016. 15. PW­4 Vinod Kumar deposed that his services were hired by the claimant from 28.05.2013 to October, 2013 and claimant used to pay him Rs. 4000/­ per month. 16. Claimant Kamaljeet, when appeared in the witness box, as PW­6, has deposed that after the accident, he was taken   to   District   Hospital,   Hamirpur,   from   where   he   was referred   to   PGI   Chandigarh. He   remained   admit   at   PGI Chandigarh   from   25.05.2013   till   28.05.2013. He   was operated there and rod was inserted. On 28th May, 2013, he was sent back to Bilaspur and thereafter, he had visited PGI Chandigarh for follow up treatment. In the month of October, 2013, again operation was conducted and due to the said injury, his right leg became two inches shorter and he could not bend the same. He has further deposed that he remained confine to bed from 25.05.2013 and now, he is walking with the help of crutches. In order to visit Chandigarh, he had hired the car of one Gulshan. The Doctor at PGI issued the 11 2026:HHC:9662 Disability Certificate, according to which, he has sustained 40% disability, permanent in nature. 17. PW­7,   Dr. Rama   Kisan,   Senior   Resident, Department of Orthopedic, PGI Chandigarh, deposed that he was authorized by Dr. R.K. Kanojia and Dr. Aditya Aggarwal, to   depose   vide   authorization   letter   Ext. PW7/A   and   Ext. PW7/B, as both the Doctors are in OPD duty. This Doctor was   member   of   the   surgical   team,   which   had   conducted surgery on the person of the claimant. He has explained the fracture as right fracture of digital femur. Artificial fixture were inserted. The claimant was discharged on 28.05.2013 and   again   operated   on   12.10.2013,   as   fracture   had   not healed. He has also proved the Disability Certificate Ext. PW7/C, by deposing that the Board found 40% disability, permanent in nature. 18. In   this   background,   now,   this   Court   would proceed further to determine the amount of compensation, for which, the claimant is entitled to, in the present case. 19. The   learned   MACT,   in   the   present   case,   has although granted the compensation under various heads, but, 12 2026:HHC:9662 the evidence, which had been led by the parties has not been discussed. As   such,   entitlement   of   the   claimant   under various heads is liable to be re­fixed by this Court, on the basis of the evidence, so adduced. Consequently, entitlement of the claimant is assessed, as under:­ 1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: 20. The   accident   in   question   had   taken   place   on 25.05.2013 and thereafter, the claimant was taken to District Hospital   Hamirpur,   from   where,   he   was   referred   to   PGI Chandigarh, where he remained admit up to 27.05.2013 and discharged on 28.05.2013. Thus, the total period for which the claimant remained admit, comes to four days. Thereafter, he was again operated upon, on 12.10.2013. The Medical Board has found disability as 40% permanent in nature. 21. Considering   the   above   facts,   the   period   of hospitalization,   as   well   as,   the   intervening   period   between first surgery and the second surgery must be traumatic and painful for the claimant, for which he is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 30 x 5 x 1000 = Rs. 1,50,000/­, under this head. 13 2026:HHC:9662 (b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE: 22. Considering the period of hospitalization, the time between the first surgery and second surgery, as well as, the time taken for convalescence, this Court is of the view that, for about one year, the claimant could not enjoy the life of a normal human being. As such, claimant is held entitled for a sum   of   Rs. 2,00,000/­,   under   this   head,   for   which,   the learned MACT, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/­. (c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE: 23. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that on account of the injuries sustained/suffered by the claimant, his life span has been shortened. As such, no amount of compensation is being awarded, under this head. 2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) LOSS OF EARNING AND EARNING CAPACITY: 24. The claimant has pleaded that he was working as contractor   and   painter   and   was   earning   Rs. 30,000/­   per month. However, the claimant himself has examined PW­2 Babu Ram Majhol, who is registered contractor and according to him, Kamaljeet was employed by him on 01.01.2010, as 14 2026:HHC:9662 painter­cum­supervisor, vide an agreement Ext. PW2/A and he had agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000/­ per month to him. In the year 2013, his monthly income was Rs. 13,000/­ per month. In this regard, he issued certificate Ext. PW2/B. 25. Although, the said evidence is beyond pleadings, but, considering the nature of the proceedings under the M.V. Act, which are summary in nature, this Court is of the view that the pleadings of the claimant, qua the fact, that he was working   as   contractor   and   painter   and   self   employed   as contractor and earning Rs. 30,000/­ per month, is not fatal for the case of the claimant. 26. The learned MACT in the present case has taken the monthly earning of the claimant as Rs. 6,000/­ and after adding 50% on account of his future prospects, his monthly income has been taken as Rs. 9,000/­. In such situation, the material question, which arises for determination before this Court   about   the   variation   between   the   pleadings   and   the evidence. Keeping in view the low legal literacy of Indian masses, at the worst, it can be said that the claimant, in the claim petition, has given an exaggerated version, with regard 15 2026:HHC:9662 to his income as Rs. 30,000/­, and in order to justify the same, he had taken the plea that he was a contractor and painter. 27. Admittedly,   the  claimant   has   not   produced   any document   to   prove   that   he   was   working   as   contractor, whereas by examining PW­2, he has probablized that he was working with Babu Ram, who is a registered contractor with I&PH and PWD Departments, who used to pay Rs. 13,000/­ per month to the claimant, at the relevant time. Not only this,   he   has   proved   the   certificate   Ext. PW2/A   and   Ext. PW2/B,  which  were issued  on  30.06.2013. In  the cross­ examination   by   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the respondents, this witness has categorically stated that he is having   the   contractorship   licence,   which   is   valid   up   to 31.03.2016. When a person, who is proved to be a registered contractor with PWD and I&PH departments, has stated, on oath,   with   regard   to   the   employment   of   the   claimant   as painter­cum­supervisor,  then  the   learned   MACT   has  fallen into error by holding that the monthly income of the claimant has been proved as Rs. 6,000/­ per month. 16 2026:HHC:9662 28. Moreover,   it   has   not   been   suggested   to   the claimant that he was neither a painter nor contractor nor earning   Rs. 30,000/­   per   month. In   such   situation, whatsoever   deposed   by   PW­2   and   claimant   PW­6,   can   be taken into consideration to determine the monthly income of the claimant, at the relevant time, as Rs. 13,000/­ per month. The total period of hospitalization including the time between the first surgery and second surgery, as well as, the time taken for convalescence, comes to about 18 months and due to   the   injuries   suffered   by   him,   which   resulted   into   40% permanent   disability,   the   claimant   could   not   contribute anything to his family. As such, for the same, he is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 13,000/­ x 18 = Rs. 2,34,000/­. 29. The disability is about 40%. Keeping in view the nature of the job, the said disability can be taken as 40%, as, no evidence has been led, to demonstrate that the claimant cannot   do   any   work. The   doctor,   who   has   proved   the disability   certificate,   PW­7,   has   stated   that   the   disability would   remain   there   forever,   but   this   does   not   mean   that 17 2026:HHC:9662 claimant   cannot   do   any   other   work,   except   the   work   of painter/supervisor. 30. The monthly income of the claimant has been held to be Rs. 13,000/­ per month and 40% of the same comes to Rs. 5,200/­ per month. Age of the claimant has been proved to be 37 years and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme   Court   in  ‘Sarla   Verma   and   others  vs.   Delhi Transport Corporation and another’, reported as 2009 (6) SCC 121,  multiplier of ‘15’ is to be applied, in this case. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to the amount on account of loss of earning capacity, which is assessed as Rs. 5200/­ x 12 x 15 = Rs. 9,36,000/­. (b) MEDICAL EXPENSES: 31. Learned   MACT   has   awarded   an   amount   of   Rs. 2,50,000/­ to the claimant, on account of medical expenses, which   have   been   rightly   awarded   to   him   and   need   no interference by this Court. (c) TRANSPORTATION CHARGES: 18 2026:HHC:9662 32. Learned   MACT   has   awarded   an   amount   of   Rs. 50,000/­   to   the   claimant,   on   account   of   transportation charges, which have been rightly awarded to him. (d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 33. At the time of accident, the age of the claimant was   37   years   and   on   account   of   the   accident,   he   had sustained   injuries   and   suffered   disability. His   period   of hospitalization, as well as, convalescence has been held to be 18 months i.e. 547 days. During that period, the claimant might have taken special diet, for which, it would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs. 100/­ per day, under this head. Thus, the compensation, under the head ‘special diet’ comes to Rs. 547 x 100 = Rs. 54,700/­. 34. The   claimant   had   also   engaged   services   of attendant, during this period, for which, it would be just and appropriate to award Rs. 4000/­ per month, under the head ‘attendant   charges’. Thus,   the   compensation,   under   this head, comes to Rs. 4000/­ x 18 = Rs. 72,000/­. 35. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/­ +   Rs. 2,00,000/­ + Rs. 19 2026:HHC:9662 2,34,000/­ + Rs. 9,36,000/­ + Rs. 2,50,000/­ + Rs. 50,000/­ + Rs. 54,700/­ + Rs. 72,000/­ = Rs. 19,46,700/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from respondent No. 3. 36. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by modifying the award passed by the learned MACT and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 13,23,000/­ to Rs. 19,46,700/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole amount, with upto date interest. 37. However,   keeping   in   view   the   facts   and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 38. Memo of costs be prepared. 39. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 31st March, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)