Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 2026:HHC:30108 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
FAO (MV) No. 248 of 2017 Reserved on : 14.07.2026
Decided on : 22.07.2026 Uploaded on : 22.07.2026 United India Insurance Company Ltd.
...Appellant Versus Jeet 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: Ms. Anu Tuli Azta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. None
for
remaining respondents. Virender Singh, Judge AppellantUnited India 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 21.01.2017, passed by learned Motor 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2 2026:HHC:30108 Accident Claims TribunalIV, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition RBT No. 75S/2 of 2015/11, titled as ‘Jeet Singh & Others Versus United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Others’.
2. By way of the award, dated 21.01.2017, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and awarded a sum of Rs. 9,99,800/, along with interest at the rate of 9% 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 appellantInsurance Company.
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 Tribunal.
STAND OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
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 have filed the petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, against the respondents, being
3 2026:HHC:30108 insurer, as well as, LRs of drivercumowner of vehicle no. HP62A0256 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), seeking compensation on account of death of Sh. Deepak, in a road side accident, which had taken place on 20.07.2011, at about 11:45 pm, near Chetu Dhaba, Theog, District Shimla, H.P., involving the offending vehicle. 4.2 According to the petitioners, Sh. Deepak was son of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and brother of petitioner No. 3, who was about 24 years of age at the time of death and was earning Rs. 10,000/ per month. 4.3 According to the petitioners, the offending vehicle was hired by Sh. Deepak, to transport his apple crop to Chandigarh, from his native village and he was also coming back in the offending vehicle to Devri Khaneti. The accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Chander Prakash, predecessorininterest of respondents No. 2(a) to 2(c). The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Theog, where FIR No. 162/2011, dated 21.07.2011, was registered. 4 2026:HHC:30108 4.4 Since, the accident had solely been attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as such, the petitioners have sought amount of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/, from the respondents. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 5.1 Insurance companyrespondent No. 1 has filed the reply, taking preliminary objections, that the claim petition is not maintainable; the deceased was sitting in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passenger; the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the offending vehicle was not authorized to carry passengers; and the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. 5.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied, mainly for want of knowledge. 6. Respondents No. 2(a) to 2(c) have filed their separate reply, by admitting the factum of accident.
They have also reiterated the fact that Deepak had hired the vehicle
5 2026:HHC:30108 at Theog Bazar, for transportation of peas seeds bags for agricultural purpose to his native village. Rest of the contents have been denied. 7. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 12.04.2013:
1. Whether deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle having registration No. HP62A0266, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation petitioners are entitled and against whom, as alleged? OPP
3. Whether deceased was travelling as unauthorized and gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR1
4. Whether driver of vehicle did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR1
5. Whether vehicle was driven without valid R.C. route permit and fitness certificate at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR1
6. Whether vehicle was driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR1
7. Whether petitioners have no cause of action to file present petition as alleged? OPR1 and OPR2 ABC. 8. Relief. 9. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 6 2026:HHC:30108
10. After the closure of evidence and hearing the
learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition, as referred to above, by fastening the liability upon respondent No. 1Insurance 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, before this Court, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No. 3 against the appellantInsurance Company, as it has been proved that Deepak Kumar hired the vehicle in question from Parwanoo to Devri Khaneti, for bringing apples from his native place and as such, at the relevant time, he was travelling in the vehicle as hirer of the vehicle and not as the owner of the goods. The Insurance Company has relied upon the provision of Section 147 of M.V. Act and prayed that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 11.1 Findings have further been assailed, on the ground, that the admission made by the petitioners, qua the
7 2026:HHC:30108 fact, that at the relevant time, the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle, as the hirer of the vehicle, has not been considered by the learned Tribunal. 11.2 The award has also been assailed, on the ground, that learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the deceased as Rs. 5400/ per month, in the year 2011, that too, when the petitioners have not filed any documentary proof with respect to the income of the deceased. As such, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income, on the basis of minimum wages, prevailing at the relevant time. According to him, in the year 2011, the minimum wages of unskilled labourer were not more than Rs. 3300/ per month. 11.3 Similarly, the findings of the learned Tribunal qua the fact that the learned Tribunal has added 50% in the income of the deceased, whereas, he was not working in regular establishment, and as such, award is liable to be modified. 11.4 Award has also been challenged on the ground that wrong multiplier has been applied. Similarly, according
8 2026:HHC:30108 to the appellantInsurance Company, learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs. 1,00,000/, on account of loss of love and affection. 11.5 The rate of interest has also been assailed by pleading that the rate of interest ought not to have been more than 7.5%.
12. On all these grounds, Mr. Jagdish Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed by exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner of the offending vehicle. 13. Per contra, it has been argued by Ms. Anu Tuli Azta, Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, that the amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced so the same may fall within the definition of “just compensation”.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
14. In order to decide the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, evidence of the parties, is liable to be discussed. 15. After framing the issues, petitioner No. 1 put appearance in the witness box and filed his duly swornin
9 2026:HHC:30108 affidavit Ext. PW1/A, which is based upon the averments made in the petition. According to him, his son had gone to Parwanoo and hired the offending vehicle for carrying the apple boxes from his native place to Chandigarh. When, the offending vehicle reached near Chetu Dhaba at Theog, at about 11:45 pm, then, due to rash and negligent driving of Chander Prakash, the offending vehicle met with the accident, in which, his son, had sustained injuries and expired. In the crossexamination, he has denied the suggestion that his son was unauthorized passenger. 16. FIR has been proved by PW2 HC Yogesh Kumar, as Ext. PW2/A.
17. PW3 Dr. M.M. Verma, proved the postmortem report of Deepak Kumar, as Ext. PW3/A.
18. The Insurance Company has examined Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar, RW1, who has investigated the case FIR No. 162/11, dated 21.07.2011 and submitted the untraced report in the Court of learned JMFC Theog. According to him, as per his investigation, it was found that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent
10 2026:HHC:30108 driving of Chander Prakash. He was not having driving licence at the relevant time, as from the spot, neither, the driving licence has been found, nor the same was found at near by places, despite search conducted by them. Brother of deceased was also inquired, but, the driving licence was also not found, at his native place. This witness was not present at the time of accident. He reached there after about half an hour. 19. RW2 Shashi Sen, was appointed as investigator and according to him, Deepak was found to be travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, which is against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He has tendered the insurance policy Ext. RX. He has denied that Deepak hired the vehicle for transporting apples from his village. 20. RW3 Sh. P.S. Chandel, was appointed as investigator in this case, who has submitted his report Ext. RW3/A. According to him, it was found during the investigation that driver was not having any driving licence.
This witness has not recorded the statement of any witness
11 2026:HHC:30108 and no goods were found at the spot. He has feigned his ignorance about the fact that deceased had hired the vehicle for carrying his goods from Parwanoo to his native village Devri Khaneti. 21. RW4 Ishan Mehta, is the son of the drivercum owner. According to him, when the accident in question had taken place, then, seeds of peas were loaded. After the death of his father, case for compensation was filed and he has tendered the copy of same as Ext. DX2. 22. This is the entire evidence, which has been led by the parties before the learned Tribunal. 23. The learned Tribunal has negated the plea of insurance company that Deepak was travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, whereas, it is the specific plea of the petitioners that their son Deepak had hired the vehicle for transporting the apple crop from their native place to Chandigarh and on the way to their native place, offending vehicle met with an accident, at place Chetu Dhaba at Theog. It is not the case of any of the parties that the vehicle was not on its way to village Devri Khaneti. 12 2026:HHC:30108
24. The accident in question had taken place in the month of July, which is admittedly apple season in the area, where deceased was residing with his parents. The father of deceased Deepak, when appeared in the witness box as PW1 and filed affidavit Ext. PW1/A, has also taken the said stand and except putting a query to him that his son was sitting in the vehicle as unauthorized passenger, no other relevant suggestion was given to him. 25. The father of the deceased specifically stated that vehicle was hired for taking the apple boxes from their native village to Chandigarh.
Once, the vehicle was hired by Deepak for transporting the apple crop from his native place to Chandigarh, then, it was not unusual for the person, who had hired the vehicle, to travel to his native place in the same vehicle. Apart from the driver, he was the only person, who was travelling in the offending vehicle and as per his father, he had to go along with apple boxes to Chandigarh. As such, Deepak cannot be said to be unauthorized passenger in the goods vehicle and he was travelling in the vehicle as owner of
13 2026:HHC:30108 the goods, to be transported in the offending vehicle, from Devri Khaneti to Chandigarh. 26. The Insurance Company could not shatter the evidence of PW1. The proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary in nature, where, the liability of tort feasor is to be fixed on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. Even, from the statement of PW1, the stand of the petitioners is proved on the touchstone of the preponderance of probabilities, then the act of deceased Deepak to travel in the vehicle, which was hired by him for transporting his apple crop to Chandigarh is natural. Situation would have been otherwise, had there been more than one passenger in the vehicle. A person, who sat in the vehicle, after hiring the same for transporting the goods, does not fall within the definition of gratuitous passenger, or unauthorized passenger. 27. The term ‘gratuitous passenger’ has not been defined in the M.V. Act, however, it means that ‘a person who had taken lift’ or ‘someone is obliging other person’.
It is neither the case of the petitioners nor the case of respondents
14 2026:HHC:30108 No. 2(a) to 2(c), that deceased Deepak was travelling in the vehicle after taking lift in the same, whereas, it is the specific stand of the petitioners that Deepak had hired the offending vehicle for transporting the apple crop (goods) from his native place Devri Khaneti to Chandigarh. 28. In this case, it has vehemently been argued by
learned counsel for the Insurance Companyappellant that it is unusual that a person would hire the vehicle at Parwanoo, whereas the drivercumowner is resident of his village. Above arguments, are not liable to be accepted as held above. The accident in question had taken place, when the apple season was on its peak and it is not unusual for deceased to hire the vehicle from Parwanoo, which is the entry point of State of Himachal Pradesh. 29. So far as the decision of this Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Maghi Ram and others, 2010 ACJ 2096”, is concerned, with due respect, the law laid down in the said case, is not applicable in the present case, as the accident had taken place in the month of July, which is peak season of apple crop, whereas, in Maghi Ram’s case (supra),
15 2026:HHC:30108 the evidence was not there that the hirer of the vehicle had purchased the apple crates. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 3 and those findings do not require any interference by this Court. 30. The Insurance Company, in the present case, has also assailed the award on the ground of quantum of compensation. According to the Insurance Company, in the absence of any evidence qua the earnings of deceased Deepak, during his lifetime, as Rs. 10,000/ per month, then, the same is liable to be taken on the basis of minimum wages, prevailing at the relevant time i.e. in the year 2011. 31. The father of deceased Deepak, when appeared in the witness box, has tendered his affidavit, wherein he has specifically stated that his son used to maintain the orchard and earning Rs. 10,000/ per month and according to him, due to old age, he could not lookafter the said orchard. Although, no document has been produced to prove the income of deceased Deepak, during his lifetime, but, in the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has
16 2026:HHC:30108 rightly taken the monthly income of deceased Deepak as Rs. 5,400/ per month. Age of deceased Deepak, at the time of his death, has been proved as 2324 years. The same age has been recorded in the postmortem report. As such, learned Tribunal has rightly taken his age 23 years. 32.
The learned Tribunal has awarded 50% increase, on account of future prospects of deceased Deepak. The said approach is not sustainable, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680”. The relevant para 59.4 of the judgment, has been reproduced, as under:
“59.4 In case the deceased was selfemployed 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.”
33. The 40% increase is liable to be made, as deceased Deepak was working in unorganized sector. Thus, his monthly income come to Rs. 5400/ + 40% = Rs. 7,560/. The deceased was bachelor, as such, 50% amount is liable to
17 2026:HHC:30108 be deducted on account of personal expenses. Thus, his contribution comes to Rs. 7,560/ minus 50% = Rs. 3,780/. 34. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which, according to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corportation, 2009 (6) SCC 121”, is the appropriate multiplier, applied in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs. 3,780/ x 12 x 18 = Rs. 8,16,480/. 35. In this case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/, on account of ‘loss of love and affection’, Rs. 25,000/, on account of ‘funeral charges’, which are liable to be reduced, on account of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 36. 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 (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, all 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:
18 2026:HHC:30108
“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. 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
19 2026:HHC:30108 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.”
37. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners is thus adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs. 8,16,480/
2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,20,000/
3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/ _________________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 9,66,480/. ________________________________________________________
20 2026:HHC:30108
38. The learned Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which, to the considered opinion of this Court, is liable to be reduced while keeping in view the prevalent rates of interest in the nationalized banks. Consequently, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 39. No other point has been urged or argued. 40. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal of the Insurance Company is partly allowed, by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs. 9,99,800/ to Rs.
9,66,480/, and the rate of interest is also reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of award amount. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. 41. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 42. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. 43. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 22nd July, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)