( 2026:HHC:28228 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No.188 of 2014 Reserved on: 01.07.2026 Date of decision: 10.07.2026 Date of uploading on Website: 10.07.2026 _______________________________________________________ Sheela Devi and another ...Appellants Versus Ashok Kumar and others …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Neeraj K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vidush Chauhan, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sunny Dhatwalia, respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal is maintained by the appellants- petitioners (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioners”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “MV Act”), against the award dated 16.02.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Una, District Una, HP, in MAC Petition No.01/2011, for enhancement of the amount of 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to present appeal, are that the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.25 lacs on account of death of Shri Ashok Kumar, who was husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioners No.2 & 3 and son of petitioners No. 4 & 5. It was averred by the petitioners that on 07.11.2010, Ashok Kumar was going to Bhindla on his motorcycle bearing registration No.HP-19A-8168 and when he reached near the shop of Vidya Sagar at Village Bhadhera, one Jeep Tralla bearing registration No.HP67-1153 came from Bhindla side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side, struck the same with the motorcycle as a result of which, Ashok Kumar fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries and he was taken to Regional Hospital, Una, where the doctor had declared him dead. 3. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, the deceased was 34 years old and he was working as JCB Operator with contractor Wazir Singh and was earning Rs.16,000/- per month. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and it was insured with respondent No.3-IFFCO TOKIO General 3 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) Insurance Company Ltd. It was also averred that the deceased was the only earning member in the family. Hence, the petitioners sought compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-. 4. Respondents No.1&2/owner and driver of the offending vehicle, in their joint reply, raised preliminary objection regarding non-joinder of owner and insurer of the motorcycle. On merits, it was averred that the deceased himself had caused the accident by coming on his wrong side on a curve and he was driving the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. The police had lodged a false FIR against respondent No.1 under political pressure. 5. In the reply filed by respondent No.3-Insurance Company, it took preliminary objections regarding maintainability, respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it was averred that the accident had occurred due to rashness and negligence of the deceased. 6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 4 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) 12.11.2011:- “1. Whether Sh. Ashok Kumar deceased had died in motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.HP-67-1153 by respondent No.1 (owned by respondent No.2) at about 11 am on 07.11.2010 at village Badhera, Tehsil Bangana, District Una on public road? OPP 2. In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative,whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR-1 to 3 4. Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motorcycle No.HP-19A-8168 by deceased Ashok Kumar, as alleged? OPR-1 to 3 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of parties? OPR 6. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3 7. Whether the jeep in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR-3 8. Relief.” 7. After parties led their evidence, the claim petition was partly allowed and the petitioners were awarded a sum of Rs.9,41,600/- as compensation against respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The petitioners were also held entitled to interest @ 7% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization. However, respondent No.3, being the insurer of the vehicle, was directed to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner. 5 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) 8. Feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied, the petitioners (appellants herein) preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 16.02.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to enhance the amount of compensation. 9. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3 and also carefully examined the entire record. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Tribunal below has assessed the income of the deceased on a very lower side. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below has not given addition of 40% of the monthly income of the deceased towards future prospects. Hence, he prayed that the impugned award deserves to be modified by enhancing the amount of compensation. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Company supported the award and contended that the impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. 12. Perusal of the record reveals that on 07.11.2010, deceased Ashok Kumar was going to Bhindla on his motorcycle 6 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) bearing registration No.HP-19A-8168 and when he reached near the shop of Vidya Sagar at Village Bhadhera, one Jeep Tralla bearing registration No.HP-67-1153 came from Bhindla side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and on the wrong side, struck the same with his motorcycle, as a result of which, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained multiple injuries and thereafter he was taken to Regional Hospital, Una, where the doctor had declared him dead. Learned Tribunal has specifically given the findings on issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. So far as the findings on issue No.1 qua negligence is concerned, neither the Insurance Company, nor the owner and driver of the offending vehicle had assailed the said findings, as such, the same has attained finality. 13. Now the question, which arises for consideration before this Court, is whether the learned Tribunal below had correctly assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.200/- per day. To prove the income of the deceased, petitioner No.1 Indu Bala stepped into the witness-box as PW-4 and tendered in evidence her affidavit by way of examination-in-chief, wherein she stated that at the time of accident, her husband was working as 7 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) JCB driver and was getting Rs.16,000/- per month. PW-5 Wazir Singh deposed that the deceased was working with him as JCB driver and he used to pay him Rs.16,000/- per month as salary. However, no documentary evidence has been produced on record by the petitioners in order to prove the income of the deceased. 14. In National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the compensation has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. Para-55 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just compensation” and the same has to be determined on the foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal standard because such determination can never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an individual case. The conception of “just compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the compensation granted cannot be an apology for compensation. It cannot be 8 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) a pittance. Though the discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the expression, that is, “just compensation”. The determination has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record as regards the age and income of the deceased and thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma (supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari (supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far as future prospects are concerned, there has been standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty, stability and consistency. We approve the principle of “standardization” so that a specific and certain multiplicand is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of age.” 15. Now, the question which arises for consideration before this Court is as to what income should be assessed in the present case. As per the evidence adduced on record by the petitioner, the deceased was working as JCB driving and was getting Rs.16,000/- per month as salary. However, except for the bald statements of PW-4 Indu Bala as well as PW-5 Wazir Singh, no documentary evidence has been placed on record by the petitioners to prove the income of the deceased and the learned Tribunal below had assessed the income of the deceased as 9 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) Rs.200/- per day. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the deceased and considering the year of accident and the avocation of the deceased as a JCB driver, his notional income has rightly been assessed by the learned Tribunal below. 16. It has further been held in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) that while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made. Paras 59.3 and 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows:- “59.3 .While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 17. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 34 years of age and in view of the law 10 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of the deceased, in this appeal, can be made towards future prospects, since the deceased was aged below 40 years. 18. In Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court, on the question of deduction towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased held that, the personal and living expenses of the deceased should be deducted from his monthly income, to arrive at the contribution to the dependents. Where the deceased was married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses of the deceased should be one-third where the number of dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6. In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which event the contribution to the parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father 11 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependents, because they will either be independent and earning, or married, or be dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-third. 19. In Salra Verma’s case (supra), it has been further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for 12 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years. Para-42 of the judgment is reproduced as under:- ‘42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 20. In the case on hand, the number of dependant family members is ‘5’, therefore, 1/4th of the amount from the total income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased. Since the deceased was 34 years of age at the time of his death, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be ‘16’ which has rightly been applied by the learned Tribunal below. 21. Thus, after fixing the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and adding 40% of the monthly income 13 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.8,400/-/- and after deducting 1/4th share from the income of the deceased for his own use, i.e. Rs.2,100/-, the total dependency comes to Rs.6,300/- (8000-2100=6300/-) per month. By applying the multiplier of ‘16’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.12,09,600/- (6300 x 12 x 16). 22. In Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that consortium is not limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental consortium as well as filial consortium. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads 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 general defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband- wife which allows compensation o the surviving spouse for loss of “company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 14 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) 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 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 love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child.” 23. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita & ors. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., Civil Appeal No.9538 of 2025, decided on July 17, 2025, had enhanced the compensation under the conventional heads @ 10% after a span of every three years w.e.f. the year 2017 and held as follows:- “20. Regarding the monthly income of the deceased, we concur with the view taken by the Courts below in assessing the same to be Rs.12,000/- per month, for there being no error therein. Hence, in awarding compensation which is just and fair, we are inclined to increase the amount awarded under the conventional heads, namely, 15 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) loss of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses by 10% adverting to the settled principle of law laid down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, that such amount should be revised every three years.” 24. Accordingly in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s as well as Sunita’s cases (supra), by enhancing the compensation under the conventional heads @ 10%, after every three years from the year 2017, the petitioners are entitled to loss of estate at Rs.19,965/-, funeral expenses at Rs.19,965/-. Petitioner No.1, being widow of the deceased, is entitled to spousal consortium of Rs.53,240/-, petitioners No.2 and 3, being children, are entitled to parental consortium of Rs.53,240/- each and petitioners No.4 and 5 being parents, are entitled to filial consortium of Rs.53,240/- each. Accordingly, the total amount of compensation comes out as under:- Head Amount (i) Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/- (ii) Funeral expenses Rs.19,965/- (iii) Loss of estate Rs.19,965/- (iv) Spousal consortium Rs.53,240/-(payable to respondent No.1) (v) Parental consortium Rs.1,06,480/-(Rs.53,240/- each to respondents No.2 & 3) (vi) Filial consortium Rs.1,06,480/- (Rs.53,240/- each to respondents No.4 & 5) Total compensation awarded is Rs.15,15,730/- 16 ( 2026:HHC:28228 ) 25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award dated 16.02.2013 passed by learned Tribunal below is modified to the aforesaid extent only. This Court, however, does not see any reason to interfere with the rate of interest awarded on the amount of compensation. Rest of the terms of the impugned award also need no interference. The present appeal is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications, if any. Interim directions, if any, are vacated. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge July 10, 2026 (V. Himalvi)