1 2026:HHC:31618 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO   (MV)   No.   136   of   2020   a/w FAO   (MV)   Nos.118,   119,   121   & 235 of 2020, 215, 216, 217 & 218 of 2023, 141, 170, 239 & 240 of 2024, 127 and 136 of 2025 Reserved on    :   06.07.2026 Decided on :   30.07.2026 Uploaded on    :   30.07.2026 1. FAO (MV) No. 136 of 2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sandeep & Others ...Respondents 2. FAO (MV) No. 118 of 2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Tara Devi & Others ...Respondents 3. FAO (MV) No. 119 of 2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Tulsa Devi & Others ...Respondents 2 2026:HHC:31618 4. FAO (MV) No. 121 of 2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Bhag Singh & Others ...Respondents 5. FAO (MV) No. 135 of 2020 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sangeeta & Others ...Respondents 6. FAO (MV) No. 215 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Subi Devi & Others ...Respondents 7. FAO (MV) No. 216 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Subi Devi & Others ...Respondents 8. FAO (MV) No. 217 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Sarita Devi & Others ...Respondents 3 2026:HHC:31618 9. FAO (MV) No.218 of 2023 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rohit Kumar & Others ...Respondents 10. FAO (MV) No. 141 of 2024 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Santo Devi & Others ...Respondents 11. FAO (MV) No. 170 of 2024 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Pinki & Others ...Respondents 12. FAO (MV) No. 239 of 2024 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Anita & Others ...Respondents 13. FAO (MV) No. 240 of 2024 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Kamla & Others ...Respondents 4 2026:HHC:31618 14. FAO (MV) No. 127 of 2025 Brij Mohan Jain ...Appellant Versus Akshay Kumar & Others ...Respondents 15. FAO (MV) No. 136 of 2025 Brij Mohan Jain ...Appellant Versus Akshay Kumar & Others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1. FAO No. 118 of 2020 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shyam   Singh   Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 7. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.8. 5 2026:HHC:31618 2. FAO No. 119 of 2020 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shyam   Singh   Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 to 6. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.7. 3. FAO No. 121 of 2020 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shyam   Singh   Chauhan, Advocate, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 4. FAO No. 135 of 2020 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder 6 2026:HHC:31618 Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 5. FAO No. 136 of 2020 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay Ranta, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat,   Additional   A.Gs.,   for respondents No. 4, 6 & 7. None for respondent No. 5. 6. FAO No. 215 of 2023 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat,   Additional   A.Gs.,   for respondents No. 5 and 7. 7 2026:HHC:31618 Mr. B.N.   Sharma,   Advocate,   for respondent No. 6. 7. FAO No. 216 of 2023 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat,   Additional   A.Gs.,   for respondents   No.   5   and   7. Mr. B.N.   Sharma,   Advocate,   for respondent No.6. 8. FAO No. 217 of 2023 For the appellant  : Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Ajay   Kumar,   Advocate,   for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.4. 9. FAO No. 218 of 2023 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. 8 2026:HHC:31618 For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat,   Additional   A.Gs.,   for respondents No. 6 and 8. Mr. B.N.   Sharma,   Advocate,   for respondent No.7. 10. FAO No. 141 of 2024 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Shyam   Singh   Chauhan, Advocate,   for   respondents   No.1 to 7. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.8. 11. FAO No. 170 of 2024 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondent No. 1. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder 9 2026:HHC:31618 Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 12. FAO No. 239 of 2024 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Mr. H.S. Rawat,   Additional   A.Gs.,   for respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 exparte. 13. FAO No. 240 of 2024 For the appellant: Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sanjay  Ranta, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. None for respondent No. 7. Mr. Tejasvi   Sharma,   Mr. H.S. Rawat,   Additional   A.Gs.,   for respondents No. 6 and 8. 10 2026:HHC:31618 Mr. B.N.   Sharma,   Advocate,   for respondent No.9. 14. FAO No. 127 of 2025 For the appellant: Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents: Mr. Sunny  Rawat, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 6. Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. 15. FAO No. 136 of 2025 For the appellant: Mr. Hemant   Kumar   Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. For the respondents: Mr. Sunny  Rawat, Advocate,  for respondents No. 1 to 6. Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate, for respondent No. 7. Virender Singh, Judge The above titled appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the appellant­United India Insurance Company Ltd., and the owner of the offending vehicle, have filed these appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the 11 2026:HHC:31618 awards,   which   have   been   passed   by   the  learned   Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, District   Shimla,   H.P.,   learned   Motor   Accident   Claims Tribunal­I,   Sirmaur   District   at   Nahan,   H.P.,   learned Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (II),   Shimla,   learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur,  learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla,   and   learned   Motor   Accident   Claims   Tribunal, Rohru, District Shimla, respectively, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in the claim petitions, which have arisen out of the same accident, which had taken place on 19.04.2017, at place Antroli (Gumma), involving bus No.UK16­PA­0045 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). 2. The offending vehicle was owned by Brij Mohan Jain;   was   driven   by   its   driver,   in   a   rash   and   negligent manner (who unfortunately expired in the said accident) and insured with the United India Insurance Company. 3. FAO (MV) No. 136 of 2020  has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 12 2026:HHC:31618 18.01.2020, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC RBT Case No.14­S/2   of   2018/2017,   titled   as   ‘Sandeep   &   Another Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’, wherein a sum of Rs. 29,10,224/­,   along   with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   9%   per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization   of   the   whole   awarded   amount,   with   costs   of Rs.5,000/­,   has   been   awarded   by   fastening   the   ultimate liability upon the owner, however, the insurance company has been directed to pay, at the first instance, and recover the same from respondent No.1 (owner). 4. FAO (MV) No. 118 of 2020, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 06.12.2019, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.170­MAC/2 of 2017, titled as ‘Tara Devi & Others Versus Brij   Mohan   Jain   &   Another’,   wherein   a   sum   of   Rs. 11,72,400/­,   along   with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   7%   per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by   fastening   the   ultimate   liability   upon   the  Insurance Company. 13 2026:HHC:31618 5. FAO (MV) No. 119 of 2020, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 05.12.2019, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.165­MAC/2   of   2017,   titled   as   ‘Tulsa   Devi   &   Others Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’, wherein a sum of Rs. 9,47,500/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by fastening the ultimate liability upon the Insurance Company. 6. FAO (MV) No. 121 of 2020, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 21.08.2019, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.163­MAC/2  of  2017, titled  as  ‘Bhag  Singh  & Another Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’, wherein a sum of Rs. 9,37,200/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by fastening the ultimate liability upon the Insurance Company. 7. FAO (MV) No. 135 of 2020, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 14 2026:HHC:31618 18.01.2020, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC RBT Case No.15­S/2   of   2018/2017,   titled   as   ‘Sangeeta   &   Another Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’, wherein a sum of Rs. 17,90,120/­,   along   with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   9%   per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization   of   the   whole   awarded   amount,   with   costs   of Rs.5,000/­,   has   been   awarded   by   fastening   the   ultimate liability upon the owner, however, it is also ordered that the Insurance   Company   shall   pay,   at   the   first   instance   and recover the same from respondent No.1. 8. FAO (MV) No. 215 of 2023, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 24.12.2022, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.5­S/2 of 2018, titled as ‘Subi Devi & Others Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Others’, wherein a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole awarded   amount,   has   been   awarded   by   fastening   the ultimate liability upon the owner and Insurance Company. 15 2026:HHC:31618 9. FAO (MV) No. 216 of 2023, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 24.12.2022, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.6­S/2 of 2018, titled as ‘Subi Devi & Others Versus Brij Mohan  Jain  &   Others’,  wherein  a  sum   of   Rs.8,90,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole awarded   amount,   has   been   awarded   by   fastening   the ultimate liability upon the owner and insurance­company. 10. FAO (MV) No. 217 of 2023, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 29.12.2022, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.38­S/2 of 2017, titled as ‘Sarita Devi & Others Versus Brij   Mohan   Jain   &   Another’,   wherein   a   sum   of   Rs. 14,66,172/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by   fastening   the   ultimate   liability   upon   the   owner   and Insurance Company. 16 2026:HHC:31618 11. FAO (MV) No. 218 of 2023, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 30.11.2022, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.7­S/2 of 2018, titled as ‘Rohit Kumar & Others Versus Brij   Mohan   Jain   &   Others’,   wherein   a   sum   of   Rs. 14,30,800/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by   fastening   the   ultimate   liability   upon   the   owner   and Insurance Company. 12. FAO (MV) No. 141 of 2024, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 24.08.2023, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.209­N/2 of 2017, titled as ‘Santo Devi & Others Versus Brij   Mohan   Jain   &   Another’,   wherein   a   sum   of   Rs. 12,25,500/­,   along   with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   6%   per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by   fastening   the   ultimate   liability   upon   the   insurance­ company. 17 2026:HHC:31618 13. FAO (MV) No. 170 of 2024, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 23.05.2023, passed by the learned MACT, in MACC No.33­ S/2 of 2022/19, titled as ‘Pinki Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’,   wherein   a   sum   of   Rs. 13,69,948/­,   along   with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of   the   petition,   till   the   realization   of   the   whole   awarded amount, has been awarded by fastening the ultimate liability upon   the   owner,   however,   it  has   been  ordered   that   the Insurance   Company   shall   pay,   at   the   first   instance   and recover the same from respondent No.1. 14. FAO (MV) No. 239 of 2024, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 26.02.2024, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.55­S/2 of 2019, titled as ‘Anita & Others Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Others’, wherein a sum of Rs.13,40,080/­ along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole awarded   amount,   has   been   awarded   by   fastening   the ultimate liability upon the Insurance Company. 18 2026:HHC:31618 15. FAO (MV) No. 240 of 2024, has been preferred by   the   Insurance   Company   against   the   award   dated 26.02.2024, passed by the learned MACT, in MAC Petition No.41­S/2 of 2019, titled as ‘Kamla & Others Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Others’, wherein a sum of Rs.12,60,700/­, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole awarded   amount,   has   been   awarded   by   fastening   the ultimate liability upon the insurance­company. 16. FAO (MV) No. 127 of 2025, has been preferred by   the   owner   of   the   offending   vehicle   against   the   award dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned MACT, in MACT Case RBT No.46­R/2 of 2023/17, titled as ‘Akshay Kumar & Others Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’, wherein a sum of Rs. 19,01,700/­, along with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by fastening  the  ultimate liability  upon the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1). 19 2026:HHC:31618 17. FAO (MV) No. 136 of 2025, has been preferred by   the   owner   of   the   offending   vehicle   against   the   award dated 09.08.2024, passed by the learned MACT, in MACT Case RBT No.49­R/2 of 2023/17, titled as ‘Akshay Kumar & Others Versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’, wherein a sum of Rs.17,89,200/­, along with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the realization of the whole awarded amount, has been awarded by fastening  the  ultimate liability  upon the owner of the offending vehicle (respondent No.1). 18. Learned MACT, while deciding the above titled claim   petitions,   have   fastened   the   liability   to   pay   the compensation upon the Insurance Company and the owner, and in some of the cases, liberty has been given to Insurance Company   to   pay   the   amount   of   compensation   to   the claimants, at the first instance, and recover the same from respondent No.1 Brij Mohan. 19. All   the   appeals   have   been   preferred   by   the Insurance   Company   and   owner   of   the   offending   vehicle, 20 2026:HHC:31618 against the awards passed by the learned MACT, as referred to above. 20. FAO No.136 of 2020, arising out of a case RBT No.14­S/2   of   2018/2017,   titled   as   Sandeep   &   Another versus Brij Mohan & Others, is being taken as lead case to decide the controversy, involved in the above titled appeals. 21. 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: 22. Brief facts, leading to the filing of RBT No.14­S/2 of   2018/2017,   titled   as   Sandeep   &   Another   versus   Brij Mohan & Others, as borne out from the records, may be summed up as under:­ 23. The   petitioners   have   filed   the   claim   petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking compensation, on account of death of their father Maan Singh, in a road side accident, involving the offending vehicle. As per their stand, age of their father Shri Maan Singh, at the time of accident, was 47 years. He was fruit merchant/contractor and used 21 2026:HHC:31618 to take apple orchard on lease and on contract basis, for the last 15 years. He used to grow vegetables on the land of the local   villagers   and   earning   Rs.20,000/­   per   month   and Rs.20,000/­ per month from apple orchard. 24. It is the further case of the petitioners that on 19.04.2017,   their   father   was   traveling   in   the   offending vehicle from Vikasnagar to Tiuni and then to Rohru. When the   offending   vehicle   reached   near   Antroli   (Gumma),   at about 10.30 a.m., the driver could not control the offending vehicle, as, he was driving the vehicle in a very high speed. Consequently,  the  offending  vehicle  rolled  down  from  the road and plunged into the Tons River. In the said accident, Shri Maan Singh sustained fatal injuries and expired. 25. Information regarding the accident was given to Police   Station,   Nerwa,   where,   FIR   No.20/2017   dated 19.04.2017,   under   Sections   279,   337,   304­A   of   IPC   was registered. 26. The   petitioners   have   also   pleaded   their   bright past and bleak future. Since, the accident, in question, has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving, of 22 2026:HHC:31618 the offending vehicle, by the driver. As such, the claimants have sought the compensation, along with interest, from the respondents. STAND   OF   THE   RESPONDENTS   BEFORE   LEARNED MACT: 27. When put to notice, respondent No.1­owner has contested the claim petition, by filing his reply, in which, he has taken the preliminary objections, that the claim petition is not maintainable. 28. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been contested,  however, the  factum  of  accident  has  not been disputed. He has  also  admitted  that  the  offending vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company. He has also annexed the copy of Insurance Policy, copy of registration certificate and copy of route permit, along with the reply. Other contents of the claim petition have been denied   including   the   allegations   of   driving   the   offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Other contents have been denied for want of knowledge. 23 2026:HHC:31618 29. United   India   Insurance   Company   has   filed   its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections, that the petition is not maintainable, as the accident, in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle; the claim petition is vague, misconceived and does not disclose any cause of action; the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same, at the time of accident and the owner of the offending vehicle has not taken any steps to check the validity of the license; the vehicle was being plied in   contravention   of   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the insurance   policy,   as,   the   vehicle   was   overloaded   and   47 passengers were travelling against the seating capacity of 37; the offending vehicle was being plied in the area of Himachal Pradesh,   without   a   valid   and   effective   permit,   valid registration and fitness certificate, as such, the insurance company has sought exoneration of its liability to indemnify the   owner,   on   account   of   breach   of   standard   policy conditions;   and   the   claim   petition   has   been   filed   by   the claimants in collusion with respondent No.1. 24 2026:HHC:31618 30. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 31. Respondent No.3­RTO Shimla has filed separate reply, by denying the factual position, as mentioned, in the petition. It has  also  been  pleaded  that  respondent   No.3 carried out mechanical inspection on the spot and forwarded its report to the Director Transport. 32. Respondent No.4­RTO Dehradoon (Uttrakhand), has   filed   reply,   by   pleading   that  the   route   permit  of  the offending vehicle was issued for Vikasnagar­Tiuni­Atal vide route permit No.PATP4729 in favour of Brij Mohan. The condition of the permit of the route is Vikas Nagar Centre­II to Set No.5 only and the accident has taken place at Gumma Himachal   Pradesh,   which   is   beyond   the   route   issued   by respondent No.4. 33. It   is   the   further   case   of   respondent   No.4   that there   is   no   agreement   between   the   Government   of Uttrakhand   and   Government   of   Himachal   Pradesh, according to which, the route permit is valid in other State. Other contents of the claim petition have been contested. 25 2026:HHC:31618 34. Respondent No.5 has filed the reply denying the averments, made in the claim petition. Hence, a prayer has been made by the respondents to dismiss the claim petition. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED MACT: 35. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues   were   framed,   by   learned   MACT   vide   order   dated 30.10.2018 :­ 1. Whether the death of Shri Maan Singh took place in a motor accident because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No.UK­16PA­0045, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondents No. 3 to 6 wrongly permitted the owner of he vehicle to ply the vehicle on the said route, as alleged, if so to what effect? OPP 4. Whether   the   petitioner   of   the   petitioners   is   not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the offending vehicle UK­16PA­0045 was not insured with respondent No.2, as alleged? OPR­2 6. whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to ply it, as alleged? OPR­2 7. Whether   the   offending   vehicle   was   being   driven   in breach of the terms of Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR­2 26 2026:HHC:31618 8. Whether   the   offending   vehicle  was  over  loaded,  as alleged, if so to what effect? OPR­2 9. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied within the territory of Himachal Pradesh without route permit, as alleged if so to what effect? OPR­2 10. Relief. 36. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 37. After closure of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned MACT has allowed the petition, as referred to above. STAND   OF   THE   INSURANCE   COMPANY   BEFORE   THIS COURT: 38. Feeling aggrieved from the award, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has preferred FAO No. 136 of 2020, along with 12 other appeals, as referred to above, before this Court, mainly on the ground that issue No.6 has not been properly decided by the learned MACT, as, at the time   of   accident,   the   offending   vehicle   was   carrying   47 persons against the seating capacity of 37. 39. The owner has filed FAO (MV) Nos.127 and 136 of 2025, with a prayer to set aside the award passed by the 27 2026:HHC:31618 learned   MACT,   by   virtue   of   which,   the   owner   has   been directed to pay the amount of compensation, as well as, the awards,   by   virtue   of   which,   the   Insurance   Company   has been permitted to recover the amount of compensation from him, after paying the same to the petitioner. 40. According   to   the   learned   counsel   for   the appellant­Insurance Company, there is violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the permit was issued to the offending vehicle for the route, falling within the State of Uttrakhand, whereas, the offending vehicle was being plied within the territory of Himachal Pradesh, without any route permit and this fact has clearly been admitted by respondent No.1, in his cross­examination. However, the learned MACT, relying upon Section 88 of the M.V. Act, has given the benefit of doubt to the insured and fastened the liability on the appellant. 41. Highlighting   the   fact   that   the   distance   from Minas   to   Fediztul   is   18   kilometers,   as   per   the   report   of Regional Manager, HRTC and the said distance, according to the   Executive   Engineer,   Chopal   Division,   is   16.64 28 2026:HHC:31618 kilometers,   it   has   been   pleaded   that   there   is   clear­cut violation of Section 88(1) of the M.V. Act. 42. On the basis of the above facts, Ms. Rajvinder Sandhu, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company, has   prayed   that   the   appeals,   preferred   by   the   Insurance Company,   may   kindly   be   allowed,   by   exonerating   the Insurance   Company   from   indemnifying   the   owner   of   the offending vehicle. In addition to this, she has also prayed that the compensation is on the higher side and the same may kindly be reduced. 43. Per contra, Shri   Shyam Singh Chauhan & Mr. Sanjay Ranta, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, have supported the award  and  prayed that the appeals san merit and the same may kindly be dismissed, by enhancing the award, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 44. The owner of the offending vehicle, who has also filed FAO (MV) Nos.127 and 136 of 2025, has prayed that the Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove the violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, 29 2026:HHC:31618 especially the violation of route permit. As such, the learned MACT has wrongly fastened the liability upon him to pay the compensation and also give right to recover the amount of compensation, after paying the same to the petitioners. 45. In   these   appeals,   the   Insurance   Company   has prayed that the company be exonerated from indemnifying the owner, as, the offending vehicle was being plied without route permit and as such, the said violation is stated to be fundamental breach of insurance policy. 46. As   per   the   stand   taken   by   the   claimants,   the accident,   in   question,   had   taken   place,   near   Antroli (Gumma) and FIR was registered with Police Station, Nerwa, District Shimla, under Sections 279, 337, 304­A of IPC. In this case, the place of accident is not in dispute, which, admittedly,   falls   within   the   territorial   jurisdiction   of Himachal Pradesh. 47. As per the claimants, deceased was travelling in the   offending   vehicle   from   Vikas   Nagar   to   Tiuni. The Insurance Company has taken the plea that the offending vehicle was overloaded and the same was being plied within 30 2026:HHC:31618 the territory of Himachal Pradesh, without any valid and effective   permit. Respondent   No.4,   RTO   Dehradoon,   has mentioned, in the reply, that the route permit for offending vehicle   was  issued  to  ply  the  same  from   Vikas  Nagar   to Tiuni, vide permit No.PATP4729. 48. In   order   to   decide   the   above   stand   of   the appellant­Insurance   Company,   it   would   be   necessary   to discuss the evidence, so adduced, by the respondents, before the learned MACT. 49. RW­1 is Devinder Kumar, Senior Assistant, RTO Shimla. He, when appeared in the witness­box, has feigned his ignorance, by stating that RTO Office Shimla was not aware that the offending vehicle was being plied in the State of Himachal Pradesh, during the year 2017. According to him, RTO and other authorized officers of the State, check the vehicles, off and on, and in case, any vehicle is found, being   plied   without   valid   documents/authorization,   the same are being dealt with, in accordance with law. In this regard, he has submitted the report of the committee as Ex. RW­1/A. 31 2026:HHC:31618 50. In   the   cross­examination,   by   the   respondent­ claimants, this witness has admitted that the accident had taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of RTO Shimla. 51. In   the   cross­examination   by   learned   counsel appearing   for   respondent   No.1,   this   witness   has   again feigned his ignorance about the distance of the spot, where, the accident had taken place from Uttrakhand border. 52. RW­3 Brij Mohan Jain, owner of the offending vehicle, has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.RW­3/A, copy  of award  dated  19.11.2018 Ex.RW­3/B,  copy of RC Mark RA, copy of permit mark RB, copy of insurance mark RC, copy of vehicle particular mark RD, copy of extract of driving licence of Kamal Singh mark­RE and copy of list of routes mark RF. 53. In the affidavit, this witness has deposed that the offending vehicle was enroute Vikas Nagar to Tiuni  and the vehicle,   at   the   time   of   accident,   was   being   plied,   in accordance   with   all   legal   documents,   license,   registration certificate, route permit and fitness certificate. The vehicle was   being   plied,   as   per   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the 32 2026:HHC:31618 insurance   policy   and   as   per   the   policy,   the   Insurance Company   is   liable   to   indemnify,   for   any   loss,   caused   on account   of   plying   the   vehicle. The   vehicle   met   with   an accident in the State of Himachal Pradesh, as, the route from Vikas Nagar to Tiuni passes through a small portion of Himachal Pradesh and vehicles are allowed to run on above road from the last few years, without any interruption and as per the M.V. Act, there is no requirement to take separate permit for the area, which falls in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Lastly, he has categorically stated that at the time of accident, there were only 37 passengers in the bus, and other   than   37   people,   who   have   sustained   injuries   and succumbed to death, were pedestrians. 54. In the cross­examination by the learned counsel appearing   for   the   Insurance   Company,   this   witness   has admitted that he never travelled in his bus from Vikas Nagar to   Tiuni. However,   he   has   admitted   that   the   offending vehicle crosses from Himachal and the distance covered in Himachal is about 7­8 kilometers. He has admitted that no permit was issued to ply the bus in Himachal over the above 33 2026:HHC:31618 distance. There   was   no   endorsement   on   the   permit   by Himachal authorities. He has denied that at the time of accident,47 persons were travelling in the offending vehicle, out of which, 45 have died. 55. In the cross­examination by the learned counsel for   the   petitioners,   he   has   denied   that   the   driver   of   the offending   vehicle   requested   that   the   offending   vehicle requires some repair. He has also denied that the vehicle met with an accident on account of the mechanical defect. He has feigned his ignorance that the accident in question, had   taken   place   due   to   non­maintenance   of   the   road, however, admitted that the road was in bad shape. He has further admitted that the accident in question had taken place   in   Himachal   area,   which   is   at   a   distance   of   3 kilometers from the Uttrakhand border. 56. In the cross­examination by respondent No.1, he has admitted that the RTO Dehradoon, has issued permit for the   route   Vikasnagar   Centre   to   Set   No.5,   within   his jurisdiction. 34 2026:HHC:31618 57. Respondent   No.4   Rajinder   Mohan   Sharma, Administrative   Officer,   United   India   Insurance   Company, has tendered his affidavit in evidence, Ex.RW­4/A and copy of insurance policy Ex.RX. 58. In the examination­in­chief, RW­4, has deposed that as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, issued to the insured, the permit was not valid for being plied, outside the jurisdiction of the said permit, without any endorsement. He has also deposed that the place, where, the accident had taken place, is 18.5 kilometers, from the border   and   the   bus   was   overloaded   and   carrying   47 passengers, against the permitted capacity of 37, including driver and conductor. The vehicle was being plied outside the   permit   area   and   lastly,   he   has   deposed,   in   his examination­in­chief, that there is violation of Section 88 of the M.V. Act. 59. In the cross­examination, this witness has denied all the suggestions, which have been put to him by learned counsel for respondent No.1, but, admitted that the route­ Vikas Nagar to Tiuni had starting and destination point in 35 2026:HHC:31618 Uttrakhand. According to him, the accident took place at a distance   of   about   18.5   k.m.,   inside   Himachal   from Uttrakhand border. Voluntarily stated that endorsement on the   permit   is   essentially   required   from   RTO   of   Himachal Pradesh. In the cross­examination, by learned counsel for the petitioner, he has admitted that he has not visited the site of the accident. 60. RW­5,   Mehmood,   Senior   Assistant,   office   of Regional Transport Officer, Vikasnagar, has deposed on the basis of the record that route permit for the offending vehicle was   valid   from   17.06.2015   to   16.6.2020. As   per   their record, the route permit does not authorize respondent No.1 to ply the offending vehicle in any part of Himachal Pradesh. 61. In the cross­examination, by learned counsel for respondent   No.1,   he   has   admitted   that   as   per   the   route permit,  the   starting  point   and   terminal  point,   are   in  the State of Uttrakhand. He has admitted that route permit issued was valid. He has denied that the offending vehicle was being plied on the prescribed route permit. Voluntarily stated   that   the   accident   took   place   at   a   distance   of   10 36 2026:HHC:31618 kilometers from Minus in District Shimla. Firstly, he has feigned his ignorance by deposing that in terms of Section 88 of the M.V. Act, the vehicle could ply for short distance in another State, but, voluntarily stated that for plying vehicle beyond the prescribed route, permit from other transport authority is required. 62. RW­6 Narinder Singh, at the relevant time, was posted as SHO Police Station, Nerwa. He has deposed that he, initially investigated the case, arising out of FIR No.20 of 2017. He has inspected the spot and during investigation, clicked the photographs of the spot and dead bodies. He has also   deposed   that   as   per   the   statement   of   witnesses recorded, the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. He has also deposed that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 9½ kilometers   from   Uttrakhand   border   via   Minas   and   7 kilometers   via   Attal. He   has   also   deposed   that   during investigation, he has not inquired about the route permit, as on his transfer, he has handed over the file to his successor. He has also tendered the copies of final report as Ex.RW­ 37 2026:HHC:31618 6/A, spot map Ex.RW­6/B, seizure memo Ex.RW­6/C and statement of Tulsi Ram Ex.RW­6/D. 63. In   the   cross­examination   by   respondent   No.1, this witness has deposed that the RC and insurance were taken into possession and checked by him, however, he has denied that only 37 passengers were travelling in the bus. 64. In the cross­examination by the petitioners, this witness has feigned his ignorance about the exact distance between the place of occurrence  in Himachal Pradesh from Uttrakhand border. 65. RW­7   Prittam   Singh   Chandel,   who   has   been appointed as investigator, in the present case, has filed his affidavit   Ex.RW­7/A.     In   the   examination­in­chief,   this witness has deposed that he has conducted the investigation on behalf of the company and found that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. 66. According to this witness, as per the terms and conditions of the Policy, issued by the Insurance Company to the insured, the permit was not valid for plying the vehicle 38 2026:HHC:31618 outside   the   jurisdiction   of   the   permit   in   other   State. Issuance and counter signature of the permit was required from the State of Himachal Pradesh, as the route area is more than 16 kilometers in the State of Himachal Pradesh. He has also tendered the documents showing the distance from Minus to Fedijpul. As per the document, received from Executive   Engineer,   B&R   Division,   HPPWD,   Chopal,   the distance   is   about   16.64   kilometers,   and   as   per   the information   received   form   Deputy   Divisional   Manager, HRTC,   Shimla,   the   same   is   about   18.00   kilometers. In addition to this, he has tendered the documents, i.e., copy of letters Ex.RW­7/B to Ex.RW­7/K.  He has admitted that in his report Ex.RW­7/L, he has not mentioned about the date, place, and names of the witnesses examined. 67. So far as the documentary evidence relied upon by the respondents is concerned, Ex.RW­1/A, is the inquiry report of the accident, in question, which was conducted, in pursuance   of   the   office   order   issued   by   the   Director Transport, Himachal Pradesh. Along with the report, copy of FIR, photographs of the spot, list of persons expired and 39 2026:HHC:31618 injured   in   the   accident,   photocopy   of   the   registration certificate, copy of insurance policy, temporary authorization permit,   according   to   which,   the   offending   vehicle   was permitted to ply from Vikasnagar to Set No.5, copy of driving licence of the driver, along with findings of the committee, according to which, the accident had taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver. Ex.RW­6/A is copy of the chargesheet, Ex.RW­7/B is the forwarding letter issued by RW­7 to the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company, according to which, the distance from Minus to Fedijpul is 16.64 kilometers. RW­7/F, is the information provided   by   Deputy   Divisional   Manager,   HRTC,   Shimla, under the Right to Information Act, according to which, the distance from Minus to Fedijpul is 18 kilometers and Ex.RW­ 7/L is the investigating report. 68. Since,   in   this   case,   Insurance   Company   has sought   the   exoneration   to   indemnify   the   owner   on   the ground of violation of the Insurance Policy, especially, route permit   and   overloading   of   the   offending   vehicle,   the   said provisions are to be interpreted in such a manner to favour 40 2026:HHC:31618 the insured, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal   No.of   2026   (Special   Leave   Petition   (Civil) No.20645 of 2025), titled as The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Durg Roadways Private Ltd. & Others, 2026 INSC   722. Relevant   paragraphs   16   of   the   judgment,   is reproduced, as under :­ “16. Keeping with the beneficial intent, it is a well settled position of law that in case of any ambiguity,   the   interpretation   that   favours   the insured must be adopted i.e. the rule of contra proferentem. Reference   can   be   made   to   United India   Insurance   Co. Ltd.   v.   Pushpalaya Printers15, which was followed in Sangrur Sales Corpn. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 6. … It is also settled position in law that if there is any ambiguity or a term is capable of   two   possible   interpretations,   one beneficial to the insured should be accepted consistent with the purpose for which the policy is taken, namely, to cover the risk on the happening of certain event…” 69. Being guided by the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, now, this Court would proceed further to determine whether the Insurance Company has successfully proved the fundamental breach of the insurance Police, as alleged. 41 2026:HHC:31618 70. In the present case, the Insurance Company has taken a specific plea that the offending vehicle was being plied in Himachal area, without valid and effective permit. As such, the breach of standard policy conditions has been pleaded by the Insurance Company, whereas, owner of the vehicle   has   specifically   deposed   that   the   route   of   the offending vehicle was from Vikasnagar to Tiuni. According to him, the small portion of the road is in Himachal Pradesh. In   the   cross­examination   by   respondent   No.2,   he   has categorically stated that the distance covered in Himachal Pradesh was 7­8 kilometers, but, in the next line, he has deposed that he does not have the proof of the distance covered in Himachal Pradesh. 71. Even, the Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company,   RW­4,   has   admitted   that   the   route   was Vikasnagar to Tiuni, which has starting and terminal point in the State of Uttrakhand. When, the suggestion was put to this   witness   that   the   route   covered   only   7­8   kilometers distance in Himachal Pradesh, he has denied the same by 42 2026:HHC:31618 stating that the accident took place 18.5 kilometers inside the State of Himachal Pradesh. 72. Even,   the   person   from   the   office   of   Assistant Regional   Transport   Officer,   Vikasnagar,   i.e.   RW­5   has deposed that the route permit was valid from 17.6.2015 to 16.06.2020 and the same has not authorized the owner to ply the vehicle in any part of the Himachal Pradesh and the accident had taken place within the territory of Himachal Pradesh. 73. In the cross­examination, this witness has stated about the distance of  10 kilometers, which the offending vehicle has covered within the territory of Himachal Pradesh. This factual position assumes significance as, in terms of Section 88 of the M.V. Act, the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided the window of 16 kilometers. 74. This   witness   has   further   admitted   that   the starting and terminal point is in State of Uttrakhand and the route permit was valid. When, a suggestion was put to this witness that the offending vehicle was being plied on the prescribed route permit, he has denied that same and stated 43 2026:HHC:31618 that   the   accident   had   taken   place   at   a   distance   of   10 kilometers from Minas in District Shimla. This admission nowhere leads to the conclusion that the place of accident is more than 16 kilometers from the boundary of Uttrakhand. 75. The   person,   who   has   initially   investigated   the case,  has  given  the distance  of  place  of  occurrence from Uttrakhand   border   as   9½   kilometers   and   via   Atal,   the distance   is   about   7   kilometers. Whatsoever   has   been deposed by this person, he has simply stated that he does not know the exact distance of the place of accident from Uttrakhand border, but, from this admission, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company has successfully proved that the distance was more than 16 kms. 76. The   Insurance   Company   has   relied   upon   the testimony of RW­7 Shri Prittam Singh Chandel, who, in his report Ex.RW­7/L, has admitted that the vehicle was having valid permit from 17.06.2015 to 16.6.2020, but, not for the area   of   accident. In   the   entire   report,   it   has   not   been mentioned that the area, where, the alleged accident had taken place, is at a distance of more than 16 kilometers from 44 2026:HHC:31618 Uttrakhand border, so, the owner could not take benefit of the window provided by the legislature, by way of proviso to Section 88 of the M.V. Act. 77. Section   88   of   the   MV   Act   is   reproduced   as under:­ 88. Validation   of   permits   for   use   outside region in which granted.—(1) Except as may be otherwise prescribed, a permit granted by the Regional Transport Authority of any one region shall not be valid in any other region, unless the permit has been countersigned by the Regional Transport Authority of that other region, and a permit granted in any one State shall not be valid in any other State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State or by the   Regional   Transport   Authority   concerned: Provided that a goods carriage permit, granted by the   Regional   Transport   Authority   of   any   one region, for any area in any other region or regions within the same State shall be valid in that area without   the   countersignature   of   the   Regional Transport Authority of the other region or of each of the other regions concerned: Provided   further   that   where   both   the   starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate within the same State, but part of such route lies in any other State and the length of such part does   not   exceed   sixteen   kilometres,   the   permit shall be valid in the other State in respect of that part   of   the   route   which   is   in   that   other   State notwithstanding that such permit has not been countersigned by the State Transport Authority or the   Regional   Transport   Authority   of   that   other State: 45 2026:HHC:31618 xxxx xxxx xxxx (self emphasis supplied) 78. Although, in the information obtained under the Right to Information Act, from the Regional Manager, HRTC, Taradevi,   Shimla,   which   is   Ex.RW­7/J,   it   has   been mentioned that as per the ETM software, the total distance from Menus to Fedizpul is 18 kilometers one side, however, from this report, no benefit can be derived by the Insurance Company that from the place of accident, the boundary of Uttrakhand is more than 16 kilometers. 79. Similarly,  in   the   report  submitted   by   the  PIO­ cum­Executive Engineer Division B&R Division, Chopal, the distance   from   Minas   to   Fedijpul   has   been   mentioned   as 16.64 kilometers. No document has been placed on record by the Insurance Company to demonstrate that the distance from the place of accident to the boundary of Uttrakhand border starting point of boundary of Himachal Pradesh is more than 16 kilometers. 80. On this vague averment, the window, which has been   provided   by   the   legislature   in   favour   of   respondent 46 2026:HHC:31618 No.1,   cannot   be   shut   down. Even,   in   the   report   under Section   173   (2)   Cr.PC,   Ex.RW­6/A,   the   person,   who   has made a statement under Section 154 Cr.PC, has stated that the   accident   had   taken   place   at   a   short   distance   from Gumma towards Antroli. From this assertion, it is difficult for this Court to conclude that the distance is more than 16 kilometers from the boundary of Uttrakhand. 81. In   view   of   the   above   discussion,   made   on   the basis of the statements of RWs, it is not in dispute that the starting and terminal point of the route was in the State of Uttrakhand. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that there are two roads and the vehicle was being plied in the road, which was not mentioned in the permit. 82. In view of the above, learned MACT has wrongly held that the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It can also be held that the vehicle was being plied as per the terms and conditions   of   the   route   permit. Report   Ex.RW­7/L   has wrongly been relied upon, without any justification. 47 2026:HHC:31618 83. As such, the contentions, so raised in the appeal, are   liable   to   be   rejected. Consequently,   the   same   are rejected. 84. In view of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the learned MACT has fallen into error by fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the owner and also fallen into error by giving the liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation, from the owner, after paying the same   to   the   petitioners. In   a   nut   shell,   the   Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove the violation of the route permit in the present cases. 85. In   this   case,   it   has   also   been   alleged   by   the Insurance Company that the Company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation, as, there was overloading in the offending vehicle as, against sanctioned sitting capacity of   37   passengers,   including   driver   and   conductor,   47 passengers were travelling. To the considered opinion of this Court,   the   above   submissions   holds   no   water,   as   the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner to pay 48 2026:HHC:31618 the   amount  of   compensation   to   the   petitioners,   upto   the permitted sitting capacity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Anjana Shyam and others,  reported in  (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 445, has held that the Insurance Company would be bound to cover the higher of the awards and will deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number   of   passengers   covered   by   the   insurance   policy. Relevant para 22 and 23 of the judgment, are reproduced as under: “22. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the  compensation   since   there   is  no  means  of ascertaining   who   out   of   the   overloaded passengers   constitute   the   passengers   covered by   the   insurance   policy   as   permitted   to   be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated,   the   purpose   of   the   Act   is   to   bring benefit   to   the   third   parties   who   are   either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that   the   insurance   company,   in   such  a   case, would   be   bound   to   cover   the   higher   of   the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the   higher   of   the   amounts   of   compensation awarded   to   the   extent   of   the   number   of passengers covered by the insurance policy. 49 2026:HHC:31618 23. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case   on   hand,   42   passengers   were   the permitted   passengers   and   they   are   the   ones who   have   been   insured   by   the   insurance company. 90 persons  have  either died or got injured   in   the   accident. Awards   have   been passed  for  varied  sums. The  Tribunal   should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42   awards   to   be   satisfied   by   the   insurance company   would   be   the   42   awards   in   the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would   be   the   amount   that   the   insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the   money   so   deposited   by   the   insurance company   proportionately   to   all   the   claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover   the   balance   from   the   owner   of   the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate  orders to  ensure  that  the  amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against   the   owner   so   as   to   ensure   the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.” (self emphasis supplied) 86. Being   guided   by   the   aforesaid   decision,   this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Insurance Company 50 2026:HHC:31618 is liable to satisfy the highest awards, to the extent of 37 passengers,   and   in   rest   of   the   awards,   the   Insurance Company shall, at the first instance, pay the compensation amount, with right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 87. In view of the above, the appeals preferred by the Insurance Company are liable to be rejected, whereas, the appeals preferred by the owner, are liable to be allowed. 88. The proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary in nature, where the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed on the basis of the preponderance of probability. 89. Now,   the   next   question,   which   arises   for determination, before this Court ,is whether the amount of compensation   awarded   to   the   petitioners   falls   within   the definition of ‘just compensation’, as the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal is to grant ‘just compensation’. 90. The Hon’ble Apex Court in  Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. 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 51 2026:HHC:31618 Court/Tribunal should be to provide “just compensation”. 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   payment   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, 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 determining 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  benefits 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) 91. This view has again been reiterated by Hon’ble Apex   Court   in  Govind   Yadav   versus   The   New   India Assurance   Co. Ltd.,   reported   in  2012   ACJ   28   (SC). 52 2026:HHC:31618 Relevant   paragraphs   12   &   13   of   the   judgment   are reproduced as under: 12. In Reshma   Kumari   v.   Madan   Mohan (2009)   13   SCC 422, this Court reiterated that the compensation awarded under the Act should be just and also identified the factors which   should   be   kept   in   mind   while   determining   the amount   of   compensation. The   relevant   portions   of   the judgment are extracted below: "The compensation which is required to be determined must be just. While the petitioners are required to be compensated for the loss of their dependency, the same should   not   be   considered   to   be   a   windfall.   Unjust enrichment should be discouraged. This Court cannot also lose sight of the fact that in given cases, as for example death of the only son to a mother, she can never be compensated in monetary terms. The question as   to   the   methodology   required   to   be   applied   for determination of compensation as regards prospective loss   of   future  earnings,   however,   as  far   as  possible should be based on certain principles. A person may have a bright future prospect; he might have become eligible   to   promotion   immediately;   there   might   have been chances of an immediate pay revision, whereas in another (sic situation) the nature of employment was such that he might not have continued in service; his chance  of  promotion,   having   regard   to  the  nature   of employment may be distant or remote. It is, therefore, difficult  for   any   court  to  lay   down   rigid  tests  which should be applied in all situations. There are divergent views. In some cases it has been suggested that some sort of hypotheses or guess work may be inevitable. That may be so. In the Indian context several other factors should be taken   into   consideration   including   education   of   the dependants   and   the   nature   of   job.   In   the   wake   of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely, the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. In fact while determining the m ultiplicand 53 2026:HHC:31618 this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jas huben held   that   even   dearness   allowance   and   perks   with regard   thereto   from   which   the   family   would   have derived   monthly   benefit,   must   be   taken   into consideration. One of the incidental issues which has also to be taken into consideration is inflation. Is the practice of taking inflation   into   consideration   wholly   incorrect? Unfortunately, unlike other developed countries in India there has been no scientific study. It is expected that with the rising inflation the rate of interest would go up. In India it does not happen. It, therefore, may be a relevant factor which may be taken into consideration for determining the actual ground reality. No hard­and­ fast rule, however, can be laid down therefor." (emphasis supplied) 13. In Arvind   Kumar   Mishra   v.   New   India   Assurance Company Limited (2010) 10 SCC 254, the Court considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and had suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing factual matrix of the case, the Court observed: "We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the petitioner in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him   full   and   fair   compensation   for   that   he   had suffered." (emphasis supplied) 92. Being guided by the above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, now, this Court would proceed further to 54 2026:HHC:31618 determine the fact whether the learned MACT has rightly assessed the amount of compensation or not. FAO (MV) No. 136 of 2020 93. In the present case, the claimants are son and daughter of Maan Singh, who expired in the said accident. As per the stand taken by the petitioners, Maan Singh, at the time of accident, was about 47 years of age and earning Rs.20,000/­  per  month,  from   vegetables  and  Rs.20,000/­ per month from apple orchards. 94. Learned MACT has taken the monthly income of Maan   Singh,   as   Rs.20,000/­   per   month. These   findings have   been   assailed   by   the   Insurance   Company,   in   the present case, as such, the evidence, so adduced, is required to be discussed. 95. Petitioner No.1, tendered his affidavit Ex.PW­1/A, which is based upon the assertion made in the petition. 96. PW­3 Ashok Kumar has been examined by the claimants to demonstrate that Maan Singh used to sell apple boxes and vegetables in the shop of PW­3. This witness has moved a step further by deposing that the deceased used to 55 2026:HHC:31618 earn Rs.13 to 14 lacs from his shop. He has also proved the bills Ex.PW­1/C­1 to PW­1/C­67. In view of the evidence of PW­3, this Court is of the view that the income, which has been assessed by the learned MACT cannot be said to be on the higher side. 97. The learned MACT has taken the age of deceased Maan Singh, as 44 years. As per the postmortem report, the age   of   deceased   Maan   Singh   has   been   mentioned   as   44 years, whereas, the petitioners have pleaded his age as 47 years. As such, his age is required to be taken as 47 years, at the time of accident. Thus, the said findings recorded, by the learned MACT, require interference, by this Court 98. Admittedly,   Maan   Singh   is   working   in unorganized sector, as such, in view of the law laid down by the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   in  National   Insurance   Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 25% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding   25%   of   his   monthly   income,   the   same   comes   to Rs.25,000/­ (Rs.20,000/­ + Rs.5,000/­). 56 2026:HHC:31618 99. The learned MACT has rightly deducted 1/3rd  of the said amount, on account of his personal expenses, had he   been   alive. Thus,   his   monthly   income   comes   to Rs.16668/­. The   said   findings   do   not   require   any interference by this Court. 100. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘14’, which   is   liable   to   be   interfered   with,   as,   the   age   of   the deceased has been held to be 47 years, as such, multiplier of ‘13’ is required to be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss   of   contribution   comes   to   Rs.16668/­   x   12   x   13   = Rs.26,00,208/­. 101. So   far   as   the   amount   awarded   under   the conventional heads are concerned, the said findings do not require, any interference, by this Court. 102. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 26,00,208/­ 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.80,000/­ 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 /­ ________________________________________________________ Total = Rs.27,10,208/­. ________________________________________________________ 57 2026:HHC:31618 103. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is on the higher side. As such, the same is required to be reduced to 7.5%, in view of the prevailing rates   of   interest   of   the   nationalized   banks. Ordered accordingly. 104. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, however,   the   awarded amount   is   reduced   from Rs.29,10,224/­ to Rs.27,10,208/­, with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No.118 of 2020 arising out of MAC Petition No. 170­MAC/2 of 2017 105. In the present appeal, the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, being widow, widowed mother, sons and daughters of Shri Narayan Singh. As per the petition, the   deceased   was   about   29   years   of   age,   at   the   time   of accident. He was mason  by  profession and  agriculturist also. 58 2026:HHC:31618 106. According to the petitioners, deceased Narayan Singh,   during   his   life   time,   was   earning   amount   of Rs.21,000/­ per month. Bifurcating the said amount, it has been pleaded that the deceased was earning Rs.500/­ per day   from   mason   work   and   Rs.6,000/­   per   month   from agriculture pursuits. 107. Petitioner No.1, when appeared, in the witness­ box,   has   deposed   on   the   similar   lines. In   the   cross­ examination, nothing has been put to her to controvert the stand taken by her in the affidavit, as well as, in the petition. 108. By examining PW­3, petitioners have proved that Narayan   Singh   was   mason,   by   profession   and   earning Rs.500/­ per day. This witness has admitted that Narayan Singh, was unmarried, but, voluntarily stated that he was living in Jodidari with Balbir Singh and Tara Devi. He has also admitted that petitioners No.4 to 7 are children of Balbir Singh. This is the entire evidence led by the petitioners, on this issue. 109. Learned MACT has taken the monthly income of Shri Narayan  Singh as Rs.6,000/­ per month. The said 59 2026:HHC:31618 findings do not require any interference by this Court, as the same are based upon the proper appreciation of evidence, so led by the petitioners. The age of the deceased has been taken by the learned MACT, as 28 years, on the basis of the document   Ex.PW­1/A,   wherein,   the   date   of   birth   of   the deceased has been mentioned as 28.06.1988. 110. Learned MACT has rightly held only petitioners No.2 and 4, entitled to the amount of compensation. In the absence of any appeal, the said findings do not require any interference. 111. Learned MACT has rightly granted the amount of Rs.15,000/­, on account of ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.15,000/­ on account of ‘funeral expenses’, however, has not granted any compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited  vs.  Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, each claimant is entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. As such, petitioners No.2 and 60 2026:HHC:31618 4 are held to be entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/­ each, under this head. 112. Thus, the amount of compensation is required to be   enhanced   and   they   are   entitled   to   a   sum   of Rs.11,72,400/­ + Rs.80,000/­ = Rs.12,52,400/­. 113. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 7% and the same requires interference, as all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 114. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, by enhancing the  awarded amount from Rs.11,72,400/­ to Rs.12,52,400/­,   with   interest   @   7.5%   per   annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO No. 218 of 2023 arising out of MAC Petition No.7­ S/2 of 2018 115. In the present appeal, claim petition, was filed by sons and daughter of late Katki Devi, who has expired in the accident, in question. Her age at the time of accident has been pleaded as 44 years and according to the petitioners, 61 2026:HHC:31618 she was earning Rs.20,000/­ per month from tailoring work and Rs.15,000/­ per month from growing vegetables. 116. Learned MACT, in the present case, has taken the income of Smt. Katki Devi, as Rs.10,000/­ per month. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Others versus Surjeet & Others,  reported in  2026 INSC 634,  has   held   that   the   value   of   the   domestic   care   of   a homemaker is liable to be taken as Rs.30,000/­ per month. Relevant   paragraphs   15   to   20,   of   the   judgment,   are reproduced as under :­ Quantifying The Contribution­of a Nation Builder 15. In usual circumstances this Court would not have ventured further than taking note of the fact that the incident and judgment in Lata Wadhwa (supra) was contemporaneous to the unfortunate accident in this case and as such compensation could   be   calculated   using   the   Rs.3000/­   per month   metric   applied   therein   however,   in   our considered view that would not be justified. It has   to   be   observed   that   to   measure   the contributions of a homemaker and mother as in this case in strictly monetary terms is a task of considerable difficulty for each and every aspect of   the   day,   month   and   year   of   such   a homemaker’s   family   members   is   informed, shaped   by   her   sometimes   acknowledged,   but most often unacknowledged or taken for granted, efforts. If compensation is to be calculated in the 62 2026:HHC:31618 present day while accounting for the egregious delay, to do so in terms that were frozen on the day   of   the   death   of   the   deceased   would   be grossly   undervaluing   the   silent   strength   of homemakers. 16. That   being   said,   even   when   it   comes   to computation   for   damages   under   non­pecuniary heads, the loss still does require the recognition of   such   heads   before   compensation   can   be awarded. The first of them being the loss of the homemaker’s dexterous ability to manage all the chores   of   the   household. Granted,   that   in   the increasingly modern urban centres of the country it may not be the case that a homemaker stands in front of the gas stove bright and early in the morning or late at night or even that she walks around, slouched, running the broom throughout the house, but, the fact of the matter is that in smaller cities, towns and villages, even today, such tasks assumedly and invariably fall on the homemaker,   without   as   much   as   a   second thought. The second head pertain to the children of the house. They have lost their mother, the source   of   never­ending   love,   comfort   and affection, the person who they could run to with all their problems, questions and concerns and heartbreaks. She   is   also   their   first   point   of contact with the ways of the world, silently and subtly   teaching   them   skills   of   survival, perseverance and excellence shaping them into well   rounded   human   beings   capable   of   being functioning   contributors   to   the   economy   of   the nation. This, in our view, is somewhat different from   emotional   support   or   dependence   for primary skills necessary for everyday functioning that   are   imbibed   by   the   children   from   their mother. This   has   a   distinctly   economic   angle while   also   being   partly   an   emotional   aspect perfectly fitting into the non­categorizable roles played by homemaker. How does one calculate this? The third is equally troubling. A husband 63 2026:HHC:31618 has, no longer, the support of his life partner, someone he depends on entirely to run smoothly, an   entire   part   of   his   life,   his   home,   family, children, relatives. Even in conservative settings where   patriarchy   looms   large,   the   sense   of dependency that obtains, if taken away, greatly challenges the man for he is now directionless and suddenly responsible for a lot more than he is used to. When the efforts of the homemaker towards the husband and children are taken on the whole it cannot be disputed that although her labour be at emotional or physical is within the four walls of the home, its impact is much wider. In enabling the direct contribution today of their husbands and tomorrow of their children, they are the building blocks for the nation’s road to holistic progress.[See: Kalukutty v. P.M. John12, Bhuvaneswari   v.   Mani13]   We  may   also   2023 SCC   OnLine   Ker   964   2020   SCC   OnLine   Mad 2163 observe that in a recent order of this Court in  Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey, also made similar observations to the following effect: “7. It   goes   without   saying   that   the   role   of   a homemaker is as important as that of a family member whose income is tangible as a source of livelihood for the family. The activities performed by a homemaker, if counted one by one, there will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of a homemaker is of a high order and invaluable. In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution in monetary terms.” Any   computation   made   as   a   result   of injury suffered or death, should be aware of this larger role and not be myopic in its view. The loss of a homemaker however is not limited to husband and children. It also directly impacts   the   women’s   own   parents   who   have been deprived of the love and company of their child, who have lost the support and comfort of 64 2026:HHC:31618 this   person   and   are   left   alone   with   this boundless grief. Still further, the loss is acutely felt by her in­laws who are more often than not members of the same household and therefore are dependent on the love, labour and dedication of this person, for food for medicines and doctor’s visit   or   for   even   the   regular   company   over   a morning tea. Strict arithmetic calculation does not lend its services to any of these scenarios. 17. It   is   settled   law   by   virtue   of  National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, that in all cases   that   have   resulted   in   death,   loss   of consortium is to be paid to the claimants at the rate   of   Rs.40,000/­   per  dependant   along   with 10%  increase   on  the   said   amount  every  three years,   so   in   2026   the   compensation   awarded under this  head  is  Rs.48,400/­. This  we  may note is irrespective of whether the deceased is a male/female/child/retired/working or whatever else. We   are   of   the   considered   view,   in   such situations the computation of compensation upon the   death   of   a   homemaker   suffers   from   an inherent (2025) 2 SCC 145 (2017) 16 SCC 680 disadvantage. The amount awarded under the same is over and above what is calculated on the basis of the earnings/salaries/pension/notional income   for   certain   categories   of   claimants. In view of the fact that there is no standard income on   the   basis   of   which   compensation   can   be calculated and a figure is taken for the purposes of calculation on guesswork, the true worth of the homemaker is missed out, in as much as it is amenable to calculation in monetary terms. 18. Future   prospects   when   calculated   on   the basis of  the above  judgment  in  Lata Wadhwa (supra)   would   also   be   calculated   on   the comparative lower notional income (Rs.3000/­per month) given that, both the fire incident and the accident forming the basis of this appeal are from the year 2001. 65 2026:HHC:31618 19. When such conservative figures are used to build up compensation, the amount arrived at is paltry, and not even close, as much as monetary terms   can   be,   to   the   loss   endured   by   the claimants. Notional   income   is   intended   to approximate the economic value of in the case of homemaker,   services   rendered   by   them. However, for whatever reason, judicial notice of this issue is usually overly conservative, without due acknowledgment of the fact that the role of the homemaker is neither entirely economic nor entirely non­economic and blends the factors of economy   with   emotional   and   managerial contributions and as such fixed compensation in terms of loss of consortium does not cover the entire gamut of their contribution. Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head 20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is concerned with or a case involving the death of a homemaker, in order to  overcome  the  inherent disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on a   calculation   of   compensation   on   the   basis   of conservatively   computed   notional   income   and while   being   acutely   aware   of   the   dictum   in Pranay Sethi (supra) regarding loss of consortium as also the disposition towards uniformity, that for   the   three   major   heads   (the   homemaker’s contribution towards  smooth functioning of  the household,   the   loss   of   maternal   support   for children and loss of spousal support/the support and care of their child who is an adult, for the parents   of   the   deceased)   discussed   in   the foregoing   paragraphs,   a   composite   sum   of Rs.30,000/­ shall be added under the head of ‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of these   heads   are   met   in   the   given   case. This determination   shall   be   revised   by   10%, 66 2026:HHC:31618 cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/­ i.e., loss of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘stand­ in’ (basic   minimum   monthly   income)   for   monthly income   in   those   cases   where   the   homemaker does not have an input into the house, in strictly conventional,   monetary   terms. In   those   cases where the homemaker is part of the workforce, the component of loss of domestic care shall be in addition to the monthly income as may be proved before the Tribunal/Courts.” 117. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680,  and   considering   the   age   of   deceased   Katki   Devi,  25% increase   is   required   to   be   given,   towards   future   prospects. Thus, by adding 25% towards her monthly income, the same comes to Rs.37,500/­ (Rs.30,000/­ + Rs.7,500/­). As such, the annual income comes to Rs.4,50,000/­ (Rs.37,500/­ X 12). The income tax component is liable to be deducted from the said income. 118. The age of the deceased, at the time of accident was held to be 44 years. As per the income tax slab, applicable for the   financial   year   2017­18,   income   of   Rs.2,50,000/­   was exempted. Thus, out of Rs.4,50,500/­, the amount of total taxable income comes to Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rs.4,50,000/­ minus 67 2026:HHC:31618 Rs.2,50,000/­). The said income falls within the tax slab of 5%. Thus, the tax component comes to Rs.10,000/­. The education cess @4% on the said amount of Rs.10,000/­ is also liable to be deducted,   which   comes   to   Rs.400/­. Thus,   the   total   tax component comes to Rs.10,400/­. Hence, the total established annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,50,000/­ minus Rs.10,400/­ = Rs.4,39,600/­. 119. Out of the said amount, keeping in view the number of   dependent,  1/4th  amount,   on   account   of   her   personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, the   loss   of   contribution   comes   to  Rs.4,39,600/­   minus Rs.1,09,900 = Rs.3,29,700/­. 120. Learned  MACT has  applied the  multiplier of ‘11’, which is liable to be interfered with, as, the age of the deceased has been held to be as 44 years, as such, multiplier of ‘14’ is required   to   be   applied,   in   the   present   case. As   such,   the amount of compensation  on account  of loss of dependency, comes to Rs.3,29,700/­ x 14 = Rs.46,15,800/­. 121. The   amount,   which   has   been   awarded   to   the petitioners, under the head, ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, 68 2026:HHC:31618 and ‘loss of consortium’, does not require any interference by this Court. 122. Thus, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced and the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.46,15,800/­. 123. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 7.5%, the said findings do not require any interference, by this Court. 124. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, by enhancing the  awarded amount from Rs.14,30,800/­ to Rs.46,15,800/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 135 of 2020 arising out of MAC RBT Case No. 15­S/2 of 2018/2017 125. The   present   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the Insurance Company, against the award passed by learned MACT(III), Shimla, Camp at Rohru, in MAC RBT Case No.15­ S/2 of 2018/ 2017, titled as Sangeeta & Another versus Brij Mohan Jain & Others. 69 2026:HHC:31618 126. The petitioners have filed the said petition, on account   of   death   of   their   mother   Reshmi   Devi,   in   the accident in question. As per the claim petition, she was earning Rs.12,000/­ per month from selling vegetables and Rs.5,000/­ per month by selling milk. 127. Petitioner No.1 Sangeeta has filed her affidavit, which is based upon her stand as taken in the petition. In the cross­examination, by the learned counsel appearing for respondent   No.   2,   she   has   admitted   that   no   document regarding the income of her mother has been filed with the petition. 128. PW­4 Vijay Laxmi, deposed that the deceased had kept Jersey cows and she used to sell milk and vegetables, for   her   livelihood. She   was   earning   Rs.5,00,000/­   per annum. 129. Learned Tribunal has taken the income of Smt. Reshmi Devi as Rs.10,000/­ per month and her age has been held to be 38 years. 130. The   age   of   deceased   Reshmi   Devi   has   been pleaded by the petitioners, in the petition, as 41 years. As 70 2026:HHC:31618 such, the said findings require interference by this Court and the age of deceased Reshmi Devi is held to be as 41 years. 131. So far as the monthly income of deceased Reshmi Devi, is concerned, the said findings also require interference by this Court, as in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Shishu Pal’s  case supra, the value of domestic   care   of   a   homemaker   is   liable   to   be   taken   as Rs.30,000/­ per month. 132. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay   Sethi’s   and   considering   the   age   of   deceased Reshmi Devi, 25% increase is required to be given, towards future   prospect. Thus,   by   adding   25%   of   her   monthly income,   the   same   comes   to   Rs.37,500/­   (Rs.30,000/­   + Rs.7,500/­). As   such,   the   annual   income   comes   to Rs.4,50,000/­   (Rs.37,500/­   X   12). The   income   tax component is liable to be deducted from the said income. 133. The age of the deceased, at the time of accident was   held   to   be   41   years. As   per   the   income   tax   slab, applicable   for   the   financial   year   2017­18,   income   of 71 2026:HHC:31618 Rs.2,50,000/­ was exempted. Thus, out of Rs.4,50,500/­, the amount of total taxable income comes to Rs.2,00.000/­ (Rs.4,50,000/­ minus Rs.2,50,000/­). The said income falls within the tax slab of 5%. Thus, the tax component comes to Rs.10,000/­. The education cess @4% on the said amount of Rs.10,000/­ is also liable to be deducted, which comes to Rs.400/­. Thus,   the   total   tax   component   comes   to Rs.10400/­. Hence, the total established annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.4,50,000/­ minus Rs.10,400/­ = Rs.4,39,600/­. 134. Out   of   the   said   amount,   keeping   in   view   the number   of   dependent,  1/3rd  amount,   on   account   of   her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been alive. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.4,39,600/­ minus Rs.1,46,533 = Rs.2,93,067/­. 135. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘15’, which   is   liable   to   be   interfered   with,   as,   the   age   of   the deceased   has   been   held   to   be   as   41   years,   as   such, multiplier of ‘14’ is required to be applied, in the present case. The said findings also require interference by this 72 2026:HHC:31618 Court. As such, the amount of compensation on account of loss   of   dependency,   comes   to   Rs.2,93,067/­   x   14   = Rs.41,02,938/­. 136. The   amount,   which   has   been   awarded   to   the petitioners, under the head, ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, and ‘loss of consortium’, does not require any interference by this Court. 137. Thus, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced and the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.41,02,938/­. 138. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% and the same requires interference, as, all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 139. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, by enhancing the  awarded amount from Rs.17,90,120/­ to Rs.41,02,938/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. 73 2026:HHC:31618 FAO   (MV)   No.   170   of   2024   arising   out   of   MAC   Case No.33­S/2 of 2022/19 140. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT, Shimla, in MACC No.33­S/2 of 2022/19, titled as ‘Pinki versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 141. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the   petitioner,   on   account   of   death   of   Shri   Sohan   Lal, husband of petitioner. The age of Sohan Lal, at the time of accident   has   been   pleaded   to   be   47   years   and   in   the postmortem report his has been mentioned as 48 years and the learned MACT has also held the age of deceased to be as 48 years. 142. As   per   the   pleadings,   he   was   painter   by profession and used to grow vegetables on his land. As such, he was earning Rs.20,000/­ per month. 143. In   order   to   prove   the   said   factual   position, petitioner appeared in the witness­box as PW­1 and filed her affidavit Ex.PW­1/A, which is based on the assertions, as made in the petition. She has admitted that she has not 74 2026:HHC:31618 annexed   any     documentary   proof   regarding   the   proof   of working, as well as, income of her husband. 144. The learned MACT has taken the monthly income of Shri Sohan Lal, during his life time, as Rs.10,000/­ per month. Deposition regarding the income of deceased Sohan Lal   was   made   by   his   wife,   who   cannot   be   said   to   be   a stranger. When, she has deposed about the income of her husband, in the absence of any evidence, contrary to the said factual position, learned MACT has rightly taken the income of deceased Sohan Lal as Rs.10,000/­. 145. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay   Sethi’s   and   considering   the   age   of   deceased Sohan Lal, the learned MACT has rightly give 25% increase towards future prospects. Keeping in view the number of dependents,     after   deducting  1/3rd  amount,   towards   his personal expenses, had he been alive, the learned MACT has rightly assessed the monthly income of Sohan Lal as Rs. 8334/­. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court 75 2026:HHC:31618 146. Learned MACT has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘13’, as, the age of the deceased has been held to be as 48 years. The said findings also do not any require interference by this Court. 147. The   amount,   which   has   been   awarded   to   the petitioner,   by   the   learned   MACT,   under   the   conventional heads, i.e., ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, and ‘loss of consortium’, does not require any interference by this Court. 148. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% and the same requires interference, by this Court, as, all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 149. Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is   partly allowed, by reducing the rate of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. 76 2026:HHC:31618 FAO (MV) No. 119 of 2020 arising out of MAC Petition No. 165­MAC/2 of 2017 150. The   above   titled   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the Insurance Company, against the award dated 05.12.2019, passed by learned MACT in MAC Petition No. 165­MAC/2 of 2017, titled as Tulsa Devi & Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another, 151. The   petitioners   have   filed   the   said   petition against the respondents, seeking compensation on account of death of Shri Jagar Singh, husband of petitioners No.1 and 2 and  father of petitioners No.3 to 6. As per the claim petition, Shri Jagar Singh, at the time of his death was 49 years and he was carpenter by profession and was earning Rs.500/­   per   day   and   Rs.6,000/­   per   month   from agriculture pursuits. 152. Learned MACT, on the basis of the evidence, so adduced before it, has taken the income of Shri Jagar Singh as Rs.6,000/­ per month. 153. Petitioner   No.1   Tulsa   Devi   appeared   in   the witness­box as PW­1 and filed her affidavit as Ex. PW­1/A. 77 2026:HHC:31618 According to her deposition, her husband was agriculturist and carpenter by profession and he was earning Rs.6,000/­ per month. Petitioner No.1 herself has admitted the income of her husband as Rs.6,000/­ and remained silent about the income of her husband from other sources. As such, the learned MACT has rightly taken his income as Rs.6,000/­ per month. 154. Age of Jagar Singh has been mentioned as 50 years, in the postmortem report and in the petition, it has been pleaded as 49 years. As such, the learned MACT has rightly taken the age of the deceased as 49 years. The said findings     do not require any interference, by this Court. 155. The   learned   MACT   has   rightly   added   25%, towards   future   prospects,   in   the   monthly   income   of   the deceased and deducted 1/4th amount, towards his personal expenses. Learned MACT has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘13’, as the age of the deceased has been held to be 49 years. 78 2026:HHC:31618 156. The learned MACT has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 8,77,500/­, under the head ‘loss of contribution’, and the same needs no interference, by this Court. 157. The   learned   MACT   has   also   awarded compensation   to   the   petitioners,   under   the   conventional heads, i.e., ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, however, on account   of   ‘loss   of   consortium’,   the   learned   MACT   has awarded compensation only to petitioner No.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra, has held that all the claimants are also entitled to the compensation, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. As such, the said findings require interference by this Court. 158. Consequently,  all  the  claimants  are  entitled  to the compensation, which is as under:­ 1. Loss of contribution =  Rs.8,77,500/­ 2.Loss of estate = `15,000/­ 3.Funeral expenses= `15,000/­ 4.Loss of consortium= `2,40,000/­ (`40,000 x 6 ) Total= Rs.11,47,500/­ 159. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per 79 2026:HHC:31618 annum. The same needs to be enhanced to 7.5%, as, all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 160. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, by   enhancing   the   amount   of   compensation   from Rs.9,47,500/­ to Rs.11,47,500/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The award  passed  by  the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 215 of 2023 arising out of MAC Petition No.5­S/2 of 2018 161. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT, Shimla, in MAC Petition No.5­S/2 of 2018, titled as ‘Subi Devi   & Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Others’. 162. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, on account of death of Promila @ Urmila, daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioners No. 2 and 3. The age of deceased, at the time of accident has been pleaded to be as 14 years. 80 2026:HHC:31618 163. Learned MACT has taken the notional income of Ms. Promila   @   Urmila   and   rightly   awarded   the compensation, to the tune of   8,00,000/­, with interest @ ₹ 7.5%   per   annum,   which   findings   do   not   require   any interference by this Court. 164. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. FAO (MV) No. 127 of 2025 arising out of MACT Case RBT No.46­R/2 of 2023/17 165. Respondent   No.1­Brij   Mohan   Jain   (owner)   has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT, Rohru, District Shimla, in MACT Case RBT No.46­ R/2 of 2023/17, titled as ‘Akshay Kumar & Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 166. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the   petitioners,   on   account   of   death   of   Smt.   Kiran   Devi, mother of the petitioners. The age of Kiran Devi, at the time of accident, has been pleaded to be 38 years. In the Nakal Parivar   Register,   Ex.PW­1/E,   her   year   of   birth   has   been recorded as 1979. As such, her age is proved to be 38 years. 81 2026:HHC:31618 167. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as Safai Karamchari in M.C. Rohru and besides this,   was   also  a  house   wife. As   such,   she  was  earning Rs.13,000/­ per month. 168. Petitioner No.1, appeared in the witness­box, as PW­1 and filed his affidavit, Ex.PW­1/A, in which, he has deposed that his mother was working as Safai Karamchari, with M.C. Rohru, on part time basis. Her age, at the time of accident was 38 years. 169. Learned MACT has taken the income of deceased Kiran   as   Rs.10,000/­   per   month,   whereas,   the   Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Shishu Pal’s case supra, has held that the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be taken as Rs.30,000/­. 170. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s and considering the age of deceased Kiran Devi,  40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospect. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same   comes   to   Rs.42,000/­   (Rs.30,000/­   +   Rs.12,000/­). As   such,   the   annual   income   comes   to   Rs.5,04,000/­ 82 2026:HHC:31618 (Rs.42,000/­ X 12). The income tax component is liable to be deducted from the said income. 171. The age of the deceased, at the time of accident was   held   to   be   38   years. As   per   the   income   tax   slab, applicable   for   the   financial   year   2017­18,   income   of Rs.2,50,000/­ was exempted. Thus, out of Rs.5,04,000/­, the amount of total taxable income comes to Rs.2,54,000/­ (Rs.5,04,000/­   minus   Rs.2,50,000/­). Out   of   the   said amount,   Rs.2,50,000/­   falls   within   the   tax   slab   of   5%, whereas, remaining Rs.4,000/­ falls within the tax slab of 20%. Thus, the tax component comes to Rs.13,300/­. The education cess @4% on the said amount of Rs.13,300/­ is also liable to be deducted, which comes to Rs.532/­. Thus, the total tax component comes to Rs.13832/­. Hence, the total established annual income of the deceased comes to Rs.5,04,000/­ minus Rs.13832/­ = Rs.4,90,168/­. 172. Out   of   the   said   amount,   keeping   in   view   the number   of   dependent,  1/4th  amount,   on   account   of   her personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had she been 83 2026:HHC:31618 alive. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.4,90,168/­ minus Rs.1,22,542 = Rs.3,67,626/­. 173. Learned MACT has wrongly applied the multiplier of ‘14’, since, the age of the deceased has been held to be 38 years, as such, in view of  Sarla Verma’ (Smt) and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in  (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121,  the multiplier of ‘15’ is required to be applied, in the present case. The said findings also require interference by this Court. As such, the   amount   of   compensation   on   account   of   loss   of dependency, comes to Rs.3,67,626/­ x 15 = Rs.55,14,390/­. 174. Learned MACT has also awarded compensation to   the   petitioners   under   the   conventional   heads,   ‘loss   of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, and ‘loss of consortium’, and also awarded   10%   increase,   after   every   three   years. Such approach of the learned MACT is not sustainable, in the eyes of law, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay  Sethi’s case   supra,   has   mandated   that   the   said   amount   will   be increased from the date of passing of the judgment. The judgment, in this case, was passed in the year 2024 and the 84 2026:HHC:31618 accident had taken place in the year 2017.   As such, the petitioners are held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/­ under the  head  ‘funeral  expenses’,  Rs.15,000/­  under  the   head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/­ to each of the petitioners, i.e., total Rs.2,40,000/­, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 175. Thus,   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   the compensation, as under:­ 1. Loss of contribution =  Rs.55,14,390/­ 2.Loss of estate = `15,000/­ 3.Funeral expenses= `15,000/­ 4.Loss of consortium= `2,40,000/­ (`40,000 x 6 ) Total= Rs.57,84,390/­ 176. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 6%, which is required to be enhanced to 7.5% per annum, in order   to   maintain   uniformity,   as,   all   the   petitions   have arisen out of the same accident. Ordered accordingly. 177. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed of, by enhancing the  awarded amount from Rs.19,01,700/­ to Rs.57,84,390/­, with interest @ 7.5% per annum  and the Insurance Company is held liable to pay the compensation. 85 2026:HHC:31618 The   order   passed   by   the   learned   MACT   is   modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 121 of 2020 arising out of MAC Petition No.163­MAC/2 of 2017 178. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT­1, Sirmaur District at Nahan, in MAC Petition No.163­MAC/2 of 2017, titled as ‘Bhag Singh & Another versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 179. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, on account of death of their son Shri Dalip Singh. The age of Dalip Singh, at the time of accident, has been pleaded to be 18 years. According to the petitioners, he was earning Rs.400/­ per day, by working as skilled labour and Rs.5,000/­ per month from agricultural work. 180. Petitioner No.2, when appeared in the witness­ box, as PW­1, deposed that her son was earning Rs.5,000/­ per month from agricultural work. On the basis of the said evidence, the learned MACT has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/­ per month. 86 2026:HHC:31618 181. Keeping in view the age of deceased Dalip Singh, as well as, the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s   case   supra   and   the   number   of   dependents,   the learned Tribunal has rightly held the monthly income of the deceased as  Rs. 4200/­. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution to the tune of Rs.4200/­   x   12   x   15   =   Rs.9,07,200/­   has   rightly   been awarded by the learned Tribunal, needs no interference by this Court. 182. Learned MACT has also awarded compensation to   the   petitioners   under   the   heads,   ‘loss   of   estate’,   and ‘funeral charges’, however, no amount has been awarded under the head ‘loss of consortium’. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s   case supra,   both   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   a   sum   of Rs.40,000/­ each, as compensation, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 87 2026:HHC:31618 183. Thus, the amount of compensation is required to be enhanced and the petitioners are entitled to a sum of Rs.9,37,200/­ + Rs.80,000/­ = Rs.10,17,200/­. 184. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 7% per annum. The same needs to be enhanced to 7.5%, as, all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 185. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed, by enhancing the  awarded amount from Rs.9,37,200/­ to Rs.10,17,200/­ with interest @ 7,5% per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified, accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 136 of 2025 arising out of MACT Case RBT No.49­R/2 of 2023/17 186. Respondent No.1­Brij Mohan Jain has filed the appeal   against   the   award,   passed   by   the   learned   MACT, Rohru, District Shimla, in MACT Case RBT No.49­R/2 of 2023/17,   titled   as   ‘Akshay   Kumar   &   Others   versus   Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 88 2026:HHC:31618 187. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, on account of death  of their father, Shri Sanjeev Kumar. As per the claim petition, age of deceased Sanjeev Kumar, at the time of accident, was 40 years. 188. According to the petitioners, the deceased was working as Safai Karamchari in N.A.C. Rohru, on part time basis and he was earning Rs.13,000/­ per month. 189. Petitioner No.1, Akshay Kumar appeared in the witness­box, as PW­1 and filed his affidavit, Ex.PW­1/A, in which, he has deposed that his father was working as Safai Karamchari,   with   N.A.C.   Rohru,   and   also   in   Hotels   and shops, on part time basis. He was earning Rs.13,000/­ per month. His age, at the time of accident, was 40 years. He has admitted that he has no documentary proof that his father, during his lifetime, was working as part time Safai Karamchari in NAC Rohru. 190. On the basis of the said evidence, learned MACT has taken the income of Shri Sanjeev Kumar as Rs.10,000/­ per month. In such situation, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court is as to whether 89 2026:HHC:31618 the  learned MACT, has rightly assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.10,000/­ per month, that too, in the absence of any documentary proof, in this regard. 191. The   answer   to   this   question   is   in   negative. Simply, because the provisions of M.V. Act, are beneficial peace of legislation, does not mean that whatsoever, amount assessed by the learned MACT, is liable to be affirmed. 192. Petitioner No.1, has deposed, in his examination­ in­chief,   that   his   father   was   earning   Rs.13,000/­,   per month, however, at the same time, he has admitted that he is having no documentary proof. In such situation, to the considered   opinion   of   this   Court,   the   learned   MACT   has fallen in an error while assessing the monthly income of the deceased   as   Rs. 13000/­   and,   in   the   absence   of   any documentary  proof, the monthly  income of  the deceased, during his lifetime, is held to be Rs.7,000/­ per month. 193. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay Sethi’s case supra and considering the age of deceased Sanjeev Kumar,  25% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 25% of his 90 2026:HHC:31618 monthly income, the same comes to Rs.8,750/­ (Rs.7,000/­ + Rs.1,750/­). Out of the said amount, keeping in view the number   of   dependent,  1/4th  amount,   on   account   of   his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income is assessed as Rs. 6562/­. 194. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘13’, which   is   liable   to   be   interfered   with,   as,   the   age   of   the deceased has been held to be as 40 years, as such, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme  Court in Sarla Verma’s  case   supra,   multiplier   of   ‘15’   is   required   to   be applied, in the present case. Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.6,562/­ x 12 x 15 = Rs.11,81,160/­. 195. So far as the amount of compensation awarded under the conventional heads, ‘loss of estate’ and ‘funeral charges’, is concerned, no interference is required, whereas, the   learned   MACT   has   awarded   compensation   under   the head   ‘loss   of   consortium’,   to   each   of   the   petitioners,   by giving   increase   of   10%   increase,   after   every   three   years. Such approach of the learned MACT is not sustainable, in the eyes of law, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay 91 2026:HHC:31618 Sethi’s case supra has mandated that the said amount will be increased @ 10% after every three years, from the date of passing of the judgment. The judgment, in this case, was passed in the year 2024 and the accident had taken place in the   year   2017. As   such,   the   petitioners   are   only   held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/­   to   each   of   the   petitioners,   i.e.   total Rs.2,40,000/­, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 196. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The same needs to be enhanced to 7.5%, as, all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 197. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed, by reducing   the  awarded   amount   from   Rs.17,89,200/­   to Rs.14,51,160/­,   however, the rate of interest is enhanced from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum and the Insurance 92 2026:HHC:31618 Company is held liable to pay the compensation. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 141 of 2024 arising out of MACT Petition No.209­N/2 of 2017 198. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the   award,   passed   by   the   learned   MACT,   Paonta   Sahib, District   Sirmaur,   in   MACT   Petition   No.209­N/2   of   2017, titled as ‘Santo Devi & Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 199. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, being mother, widow, son and daughters of Shri Surinder Singh, who has expired in the accident, in question. As per the claim petition, Surender Singh, at the time   of   his   death   was   44   years. According   to   the petitioners, the deceased was agriculturist and was earning Rs.12,000/­ per month. 200. Petitioner No.2, Kaushalya Devi, when appeared in the witness­box, as PW­1, has deposed that her husband was   earning   Rs.12,000/­   to   15,000/­   per   month. 93 2026:HHC:31618 Admittedly, she has not produced any documentary proof regarding the income of her husband. 201. Learned MACT has taken the income of deceased Surender Singh as Rs.6,000/­ per month. Said approach of the learned MACT is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, there was no occasion for the learned MACT to take the income of Shri Surender Singh as notional, since, his wife has   categorically   deposed   about   his   earnings   between Rs.12,000/­ to Rs.15,000/­ per month. The deposition, on oath, cannot be brushed aside, merely, in the absence of Jamabandi, as has been held by the learned MACT. 202. Considering the stand of PW­1, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the monthly income of deceased Surender Singh is taken as Rs.7,000/­ per month. 203. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay   Sethi’s   and   considering   the   age   of   deceased Surinder   Singh,   25%   increase   is   required   to   be   given, towards   future   prospect. Thus,   by   adding   25%   of   his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.8,750/­ (Rs.7,000/­ 94 2026:HHC:31618 + Rs.1,750/­). Out of the said amount, keeping in view the number   of   dependent,   1/5th  amount,   on   account   of   his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.7,000/­. 204. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘14’, which is the appropriate multiplier, keeping in view the age of the deceased, which is held to be as 44 years. Thus, the loss   of   contribution   comes   to   Rs.7000/­   x   12   x   14   = Rs.11,76,000/­. 205. So far as the amount of compensation awarded under   the   conventional   heads,   ‘loss   of   estate’,   ‘funeral charges’, and ‘loss of consortium’, is concerned, the learned MACT has given the increase of 10%. Such approach of the learned MACT is not sustainable, in the eyes of law, as the Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in  Pranay  Sethi’s  case   has mandated that the said amount will be increased @ 10%, after   every   three   years,   from   the   date   of   passing   of   the judgment. The judgment, in the present case, was passed in the year 2023 and the accident had taken place in the year 2017. As such, the petitioners are only held entitled to a 95 2026:HHC:31618 sum   of   Rs.15,000/­   under   the   head   ‘funeral   expenses’, Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘loss of estate’ and Rs.40,000/­ to each of the petitioners, i.e. total Rs. 2,80,000/­, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 206. Viewed thus, the petitioners are held entitled to enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,76,000/­ + Rs. 15,000/­ + Rs. 15,000/­ + Rs. 2,80,000/­ = Rs. 14,86,000/­. 207. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The same needs to be enhanced to 7.5%, as, all the petitions have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 208. Accordingly,   the   amount   of   compensation   is required to be enhanced. Consequently, the present appeal is   dismissed,   by   enhancing   the  awarded   amount   from Rs.12,25,500/­ to Rs.14,86,000/­and rate of interest from 6% to 7.5 % per annum. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. 96 2026:HHC:31618 FAO (MV) No. 216 of 2023 arising out of MAC Petition No.6­S/2 of 2018 209. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT, Shimla, in MAC Petition   No.6­S/2  of  2018,  titled  as  ‘Subi  Devi  &  Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Others’. 210. The above noted claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, on account of death of Radha, daughter of petitioner No.1 and sister of petitioners No.2 and 3. The age of deceased, at the time of accident, has been pleaded to be as 14 years. 211. Learned MACT has taken the notional income of Ms. Radha and has rightly awarded the compensation, to the   tune   of   Rs. 8,90,000/­,   with   interest   @   7.5%     per annum, which findings, do not require any interference, by this Court. 212. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. FAO   (MV)   No.   217   of   2023   arising   out   of   MAC   Case No.38­S/2 of 2017 213. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT(II), Shimla, in MAC 97 2026:HHC:31618 Petition   No.38­S/2   of   2017,   titled   as   ‘Pinki   versus   Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 214. The above noted claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, being widow daughter and son of deceased Ramesh Chand. The age of Ramesh Chand, at the time of accident, has been pleaded to be 46 years. 215. As   per   the   claim   petition,   the   deceased   was agriculturist and horticulturist and is earning Rs.1,00,000/­ per month. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that   he   was   a   progressive   horticulturist   and   an   expert pruner. 216. In   order   to   prove   the   said   factual   position, petitioner No.1, Sarita Devi, appeared in the witness­box as PW­1   and   deposed   that   her   husband   was   earning Rs.1,00,000/­   per   month,   by   grafting   and   cutting   in   the apple orchard. PW­2, Bisham Singh Thakur, deposed that he used to pay  Rs.70,000/­ to 80,0000/­ to  Ramesh for cutting   and   pruning. The   learned   MACT   has   taken   the income of Shri Ramesh, during his life time as Rs.9,000/­ per month, on notional basis. The said findings are not 98 2026:HHC:31618 sustainable, in the judicial scrutiny by this Court, as the pruning work is seasonal in nature. As such, the income of deceased   Ramesh,   during   his   life   time   can   be   taken   as Rs.7,000/­ per month. 217. The petitioners have pleaded the age of deceased Ramesh   Chand,   as   46   years. As   per   the   matriculation certificate annexed with the petition, the date of birth of the deceased Ramesh Chand was 04.08.1968. As such, age of the  deceased  was 49 years, at the time of accident. 218. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay   Sethi’s   and   considering   the   age   of   deceased Ramesh   Chand,  25%   increase   is   required   to   be   given, towards   future   prospects. Thus,   by   adding   25%   of   his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.8,750/­ (Rs.7,000/­ + Rs.1,750/­). Out of the said amount, keeping in view the number   of   dependents,  1/3rd  amount,   on   account   of   his personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.5833/­. 219. Learned MACT has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘13’, as, the age of the deceased has been held to be as 49 99 2026:HHC:31618 years. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.5833/­ x 12 x 13= Rs.9,09,948/­, under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 220. The   amount,   which   has   been   awarded   to   the petitioners, by the learned MACT, under the conventional heads, i.e., ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral charges’, and ‘loss of consortium’, does not require any interference by this Court. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 9,09,948/­ + Rs. 15,000/­ + Rs. 15,000/­ + Rs. 1,20,000/­ = Rs.10,59,948/­. 221. Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is   partly allowed,   by   reducing   the   amount   of   compensation   from Rs.14,66,172 to Rs.10,59,948/­. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 239 of 2024 arising out of MAC Petition No.55­S/2 of 2019 222. Insurance Company has filed the appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT(II), Shimla, in MAC Petition No.55­S/2 of 2019, titled as ‘Anita & Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 100 2026:HHC:31618 223. The above noted claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, on account of death of Kaku @ Punnu, being his widow and parents, in the accident in question. The age of Kaku, at the time of accident, has been pleaded to be 23 years. 224. As   per   the   claim   petition,   the   deceased   was painter by profession and also used to grow vegetables. He is stated to be earning Rs.20,000/­ per month from painting work and Rs.10,000/­ per month, from the vegetables. 225. Petitioner   No.1,   Anita,   when   appeared   in   the witness­box, as PW­2, has filed her affidavit Ex.PW­2/A, in which, she has changed her version, as taken in the claim petition,   by   deposing   that   her   husband   used   to   earn Rs.20,000/­ per month from vegetables and Rs.10,000/­ per month from painter work. 226. The   learned   MACT   has   taken   the   income   of deceased Kaku, during his life time, as per the daily wages pertaining   to   agriculture   labourer,   in   the   year   2017,   as Rs.210/­ per day, or to say Rs.6300/­ per month. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 101 2026:HHC:31618 227. The petitioners have pleaded the age of deceased Kaku, as 23 years. 228. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay   Sethi’s   and   considering   the   age   of   deceased Kaku, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future prospects. Thus, by adding 40% of his monthly income, the same comes to Rs.8,820/­ (Rs.6300/­ + Rs.2,520/­). Out of the said amount, keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3rd  amount,   on   account   of   his   personal   expenses,   is required   to   be   deducted,   had   he   been   alive. Thus,   his monthly   income   comes   to   Rs.5880/­. The   said   findings require interference by this Court. 229. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘18’. Keeping in view the age of the deceased, the said multiplier is the appropriate multiplier. Thus, the petitioners have rightly been held entitled to compensation of Rs.5880/­x12 x 18= Rs.12,70,080/­, under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 230. The   learned   MACT   has   rightly   awarded compensation  under  the  conventional  heads, i.e.,  ‘loss of estate’, and ‘funeral charges’, however, the learned MACT 102 2026:HHC:31618 has   awarded   compensation   under   the   head   ‘loss   of consortium’, only to one petitioner, which is required to be awarded to all the petitioners, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra. 231. Thus,   the   petitioners   are   held   entitled   to   the compensation, as under:­ 1. Loss of income = Rs. 12,70,080/­ 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,20,000/­ 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 /­ ________________________________________________________ Total = Rs.14,20,080/­. ________________________________________________________ 232. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% and the said findings require interference, by this Court, as, all the petitions, have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 103 2026:HHC:31618 233. Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is   partly allowed,  by  enhancing  the  amount   of  compensation  from Rs.13,40,080/­   to   Rs.14,20,080/­,   along   with   interest   @ 7.5%. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly. FAO (MV) No. 240 of 2024 arising out of MAC Petition No.41­S/2 of 2019 234. Insurance Company has filed the present appeal against the award, passed by the learned MACT(II), Shimla, in   MAC   Petition   No.41­S/2   of   2019,   titled   as   ‘Kamla   & Others versus Brij Mohan Jain & Another’. 235. The above titled claim petition has been filed, by the petitioners, seeking compensation, on account of death of Ajab Singh, being his widow, daughter, son and widowed mother, in the accident in question. The age of Ajab Singh, at the time of accident, has been pleaded to be as 38 years. 236. As   per   the   claim   petition,   the   deceased   was painter by profession and also used to grow vegetables. He is earning Rs.15,000/­ per month from painting work and Rs.10,000/­ per month, from the vegetables. 104 2026:HHC:31618 237. In   order   to   prove   the   above   factual   position, petitioner No.1, appeared in the witness­box, as PW­2, and filed   her   affidavit   Ex.PW­2/A,   in   which,   she   has   again asserted   the   fact   that   her   husband   was   a   painter   by profession and earning Rs.15,000/­ per month, by painting working and Rs.10,000/­ by growing vegetables. 238. The   learned   MACT   has   taken   the   income   of deceased Ajab Singh, during his life time, as per the daily wages pertaining to agriculture labourer, in the year 2017, as Rs.210/­ per day, or to say Rs.6300/­ per month. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 239. The petitioners have pleaded the age of deceased Kaku, as 38 years. 240. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case and considering the age of deceased Ajab Singh, 40% increase is required to be given, towards future   prospect. Thus,   by   adding   40%   of   his   monthly income,   the   same   comes   to   Rs.8,820/­   (Rs.6300/­   + Rs.2,520/­). Out of the said amount, keeping in view the number   of   dependents,  1/4th  amount,   on   account   of   his 105 2026:HHC:31618 personal expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.6615/­. The said findings do not require any interference, by this Court. 241. Keeping   in   view   the   age   of   the   deceased,   the learned MACT has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘15’ and has rightly held the petitioners entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.6615/­x12x15= Rs.11,90,700/­, under the head ‘loss of dependency’. 242. The   compensation   has   been   awarded   to   the petitioners, by the learned MACT, under the conventional heads, i.e., ‘loss of estate’, and ‘funeral charges’, however, the   learned   MACT   has   awarded   compensation   under   the head ‘loss of consortium’, only to one petitioner, which is required to be awarded to all the petitioners, as pet the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nanu Ram’s case supra. 243. Thus,   the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   the compensation, as under:­ 1. Loss of income = Rs. 11,90,700/­ 2. Loss of consortium= Rs.1,60,000/­ 106 2026:HHC:31618 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 /­ ________________________________________________________ Total = Rs.13,80,700/­. ________________________________________________________ 244. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the learned MACT has awarded the interest at the rate of 9% and the said findings require interference, by this Court, as, all the petitions, have arisen out of the same accident and in order to maintain uniformity, the rate of interest is held to be 7.5% per annum. 245. Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is   partly allowed,  by  enhancing  the  amount   of  compensation  from Rs.12,60,700/­   to   Rs.13,80,700/­,   along   with   interest   @ 7.5%.  The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. 246. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 247. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. 248. Record be sent back. 107 2026:HHC:31618 249. Copy of the judgment be placed on the files, in the connected appeals. (Virender Singh) Judge 30th July, 2026 (rajni/ps)