1 2026:HHC:34760 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MV) No. 81 of 2018 a/w FAO (MV) Nos. 82, 83, 84 & 85 of 2018 Reserved on : 06.08.2026 Decided on : 18.08.2026 Uploaded on : 18.08.2026 (1) FAO (MV) No. 81 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Ranjeeta & Ors. ...Respondents (2) FAO (MV) No. 82 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Ram Bhagti & Ors. ...Respondents (3) FAO (MV) No. 83 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Prem Lata & Ors. ...Respondents 2 2026:HHC:34760 (4) FAO (MV) No. 84 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Vidya Devi & Ors. ...Respondents (5) FAO (MV) No. 85 of 2018 United India Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Rajam Devi & Ors. ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Mamta, Advocate, in all the appeals. For the respondents: Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocate (joined through VC) with Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4 in FAO No. 81 of 2018; for respondents No. 1 & 2 in FAO No. 82 of 2018; for respondents No. 1 to 3 in FAO No. 83 of 2018; for respondents No. 1 & 2 in FAO No. 84 of 2018; and for 3 2026:HHC:34760 respondents No. 1 & 2 in FAO No. 85 of 2018. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 in FAO No. 81 of 2018; for respondent No. 3 in FAO No. 82 of 2018; for respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 83 of 2018; for respondent No. 3 in FAO No. 84 of 2018; and for respondent No. 3 in FAO No. 85 of 2018. Mr. Pushpinder Kumar Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, for respondent No. 6 in FAO No. 81 of 2018; for respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 82 of 2018; for respondent No. 5 in FAO No. 83 of 2018; for respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 84 of 2018; and for respondent No. 4 in FAO No. 85 of 2018. Virender Singh, Judge All the above titled appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as the appellantUnited India Insurance Company Ltd., has filed these appeals, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the common award, dated 13.10.2017, which 4 2026:HHC:34760 has been passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims TribunalII, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in the claim petitions, which have arisen out of the accident, which had taken place on 07/08.09.2013, at about 10:15 AM, at place Gatu Nallah, near Jheltwari (Khabal), involving vehicle Bolero Camper bearing registration No. HP62A2098 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). 2. FAO (MV) No. 81 of 2018, has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 17R/2 of 2013, titled as ‘Ranjeeta & Ors. Versus Moti Lal & Ors.’, wherein, a sum of Rs. 16,02,000/, 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 in favour of the petitionersclaimants, fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the appellantInsurance Company. 3. FAO (MV) No. 82 of 2018, has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the 5 2026:HHC:34760 learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 14R/2 of 2013, titled as ‘Ram Bhagti & Anr. Versus Moti Lal & Ors.’, wherein, a sum of Rs. 14,21,000/, 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 in favour of the petitionersclaimants, fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the appellantInsurance Company. 4. FAO (MV) No. 83 of 2018, has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 15R/2 of 2013, titled as ‘Prem Lata & Ors. Versus Moti Lal & Ors.’, wherein, a sum of Rs. 14,49,000/, 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 in favour of the petitionersclaimants, fastening the ultimate liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant Insurance Company. 5. FAO (MV) No. 84 of 2018, has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the 6 2026:HHC:34760 learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 16R/2 of 2013, titled as ‘Vidya Devi & Ors. Versus Moti Lal & Ors.’, wherein, a sum of Rs. 9,43,000/, 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 in favour of the petitionersclaimants, fastening the ultimate liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant Insurance Company. 6. FAO (MV) No. 85 of 2018, has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 18R/2 of 2013, titled as ‘Rajam Devi & Ors. Versus Moti Lal & Ors.’, wherein, a sum of Rs. 9,97,000//, 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 in favour of the petitionersclaimants, fastening the ultimate liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant Insurance Company. 7 2026:HHC:34760 7. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal. STAND OF THE PETITIONERS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL: 8. Necessary facts, for adjudication of the above titled appeals are being borrowed from MAC Petition No. 17 R/2 of 2013, titled as “Ranjeeta & Ors. Versus Moti Lal & Ors.”, by treating the said case as the lead case, 9. The claim petition, bearing No. 17R/2 of 2013, has been filed by the legal heirs of Sh. Diwan Singh. The claimants are widow, minor sons and mother of Sh. Diwan Singh. They have sought the compensation on account of death of Sh. Diwan Singh, in the road side accident, involving the offending vehicle. Sh. Diwan Singh, according to the case set up by the claimants, was 28 years of age, at the time of his death and was agriculturist by profession and earning Rs. 14,000/ per month. 9.1 According to the claimants, on the intervening night of 07th/08th September, 2013, Sh. Diwan Singh was 8 2026:HHC:34760 travelling in the offending from from Chirgaon to Khabal. The vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 2. Due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, the vehicle rolled down from the road at about 10:15 AM at Ghatu Nala near Jhetwari, Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, H.P., resulting into fatal injuries to Diwan Singh, who expired on the spot. 9.2 The information regarding the accident was given to police of Police Station Chirgaon, where, FIR No. 53, dated 09.09.2013, was registered. The claimants have also pleaded about their bright past and bleak future. Since, the accident in question has been solely attributed to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as such, claimants sought compensation from the respondents, jointly and severally. STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL: 10. When put to notice, the claim petition has only been contested by respondents No. 1 and 3. Respondent No. 2 has not opted to contest the claim petition. 9 2026:HHC:34760 10.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed the reply taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable, petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and petition is devoid of material facts and suppression of facts. 10.2 On merits, the factum of accident has not been disputed. According to respondent No. 1, deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle in the capacity of owner of the goods, as, he had bought wheat flour, rice, edible oil, onions and other daily consumables from different shops at Chirgaon bazaar, since, on the next day, a local fair (Jagra) was to be celebrated at his village. 10.3 Rest of the contents of claim petition have been denied. However, it has been admitted that respondent No. 2 Vidya Prakash was employed as driver of the offending vehicle by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 was having valid and effective driving license. Copy of his driving license was provided to the owner and the same was found to be valid up to 05.05.2016. 11. Insurance Company has also filed its separate reply, taking preliminary objections that the petition is not 10 2026:HHC:34760 maintainable, the offending vehicle was light goods carrying vehicle, which comes under the category of goods carrier as per M.V. Act. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the owner has permitted to ply the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 11.1 As per the stand of the Insurance Company, the deceased, along with other persons, was travelling in the offending vehicle, as unauthorized gratuitous passenger. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license and he is already getting the family pension on account of disability of locomotors/orthopatice (50% damage to his eyes), from the Welfare Department. The driver, thus, played fraud upon the Insurance Company and Motor Driving License Issuance Department. The license was obtained by the driver in gross misuse of the process of law. In this regard, the Insurance Company has relied upon the information, which the company has obtained under the Right to Information Act. 11 2026:HHC:34760 11.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want to knowledge. 12. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 13. The petitioners filed the rejoinder, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the replies on merits, filed by respondents No. 1 and 3. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL: 14. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 20.08.2016: 1. Whether deceased Diwan Singh died in a motor vehicle accident, took place on 07/08.09.2013, at about 10:15 AM at place Gatu Nallah near Jheltwari, (Khabal) involving offending vehicle Bolero Camper bearing registration No. HP62A2098, on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so, then what should be the quantum and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 4. Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for nonjoinder or necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 6. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle as unauthorized gratuitous passenger, as alleged? OPR 12 2026:HHC:34760 7. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR 8. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR 9. Whether the vehicle was being driven in breach of provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, as alleged? OPR 10. Relief. 15. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 16. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petitions, as referred to above, fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. STAND OF THE INSURANCE COMPANY BEFORE THIS COURT: 17. Feeling aggrieved from the said common award, the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has preferred the above titled appeals under Section 173 of M.V. Act. 18. The award passed by the learned Tribunal has been assailed, on the ground, that the Insurance Company 13 2026:HHC:34760 is not liable to indemnify the owner, as well as, on account of quantum of compensation. 19. According to the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that the deceased persons, were gratuitous passengers, travelling in the offending vehicle, which was a goods carrier vehicle and the case set up by the claimants qua the fact that deceased persons were travelling along with the owner of the goods, has not been proved, as they could not produce any receipt in this regard. All these facts have been pleaded to demonstrate that the Insurance Company has successfully proved the fundamental violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 20. The award has also been assailed, on the ground, that as per the Registration Certificate, seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 4+1 and the driver has survived, whereas, five other occupants have expired in the accident. As such, according to the Insurance Company, they are liable to pay the amount of compensation only to four occupants. 14 2026:HHC:34760 21. The award has further been assailed on the ground that respondent No. 2 was not qualified to hold a license, as, despite 50% disability, he has obtained the license from Licencing Authority Nagaland, by playing fraud upon the Licencing Authority. According to the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 could not be said to be validly authorized to drive the offending vehicle and thus, there was clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 22. The quantum of award has also been assailed on the ground that the award is contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680”, and learned Tribunal, without any record, has taken the income of deceased as Rs. 6,000/ per month and wrongly given the enhancement, on account of future prospects at the rate of 50%. Similarly, non pecuniary compensation has also been prayed to be reduced to Rs. 70,000/ only. 15 2026:HHC:34760 23. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Mamta, Advocate, for the appellant, in all the appeals, has prayed that the appeals may kindly be allowed by exonerating the Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner. In addition to this, a prayer has also been made to reduce the award, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 24. Per contra, Mr. Sheetesh Khanna, Advocate, who has joined the proceedings through VC and Mr. Yash Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 4 (claimants), have supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the award amount be enhanced, so that, the same could fall within the definition of ‘adequate compensation’. 25. Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle, has also supported the award, by arguing that the owner had seen the driving license of the driver and also retained the copy of the same, which has been produced on record, by him before the 16 2026:HHC:34760 learned Tribunal. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeals. 26. Mr. Pushpinder Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, appearing for respondent No. 6, has also supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the appeals san merits and the same may kindly be dismissed. DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS: 27. In order to decide the above appeals, it would be just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence, so adduced by the respondents, before the learned Tribunal. 28. After the closure of the petitioners’ evidence, respondent No. 1, Moti Lal stepped into the witness box as RW1 and filed his duly swornin affidavit Ext. RW1/C in evidence. According to RW1, he was registered owner of the offending vehicle, which met with an accident, on the intervening night of 7th/8th September, 2013, at Ghatunala, near Village Jheltwari (Khabal). The deceased persons had hired the said vehicle in order to reach their village and they have loaded their articles in the offending vehicle, as, on the 17 2026:HHC:34760 next day, there was a ‘Jagra’ function. Respondent No. 2 was driving the offending vehicle, and at the relevant time, he was having valid driving license. The accident in question had taken place due to technical defect, which, had occurred in the offending vehicle. In his examinationin chief, RW1 has also tendered the copy of driving license of respondent No. 2, as Ext. RW1/A and copy of insurance policy as Ext. RW1/B. 28.1 In the crossexamination by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3, RW1 has admitted that the offending vehicle is Light Goods Carrying Vehicle. He has denied that the additional premium for carrying the passengers has not been paid. He also denied that driver was not having valid driving license. He denied that respondent No. 2 is getting pension on account of physical disability. He has also denied that respondent No. 2 is 50% visually impaired. 29. Insurance Company has examined Smt. Shashi Saini, Assistant Manager, as RW2. According to her, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3, as 18 2026:HHC:34760 Goods Carrying Vehicle i.e. Pickup jeep. She has proved the verification report of the offending vehicle as Ext. RW2/B. After receiving the information regarding the accident, surveyor Pankaj Sharma has submitted the report, Ext. RW2/C. As per the report, vehicle was not carrying any goods and six persons were found travelling in the vehicle, whereas, the same was authorized to carry five persons. According to her, all these five persons were travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passengers. The Insurance Company has also appointed Sh. R.N. Sharma, investigator, who submitted his report that the driver was 50% disabled and due to said disability, he was getting disability pension from Welfare Department. She has proved the copy of investigation report as Ext. RW2/D. As per the report, respondent No. 2 was not authorized to drive the vehicle. 29.1 According to this witness, the claim for own damages of the offending vehicle was also submitted, which has been repudiated, vide letter Ext. RW2/E. The documents regarding the disability of respondent No. 2 were obtained by their counsel and it was found that respondent 19 2026:HHC:34760 No. 2, was getting the disability pension, on account of his 50% disability. She has tendered the documents obtained under Right to Information Act, as Ext. RW2/F. This witness has also deposed that the seating capacity of the vehicle was 4+1, whereas, at the time of accident, six persons were travelling, out of which, five have expired on the spot. 29.2 According to the crossexamination of this witness, she has been authorized to depose by DM, but, she could not disclose that as and when, she has been authorized to make a statement. She could not produce any document, on the basis of which, she could say, that she is working with respondent No. 3. Report Ext. RW2/C, was not prepared in her presence. The same was prepared by Sh. Pankaj Sharma. Similarly, she could not disclose about the date, when the vehicle was inspected. According to her, she is making the statement on the basis of report submitted by Girish Sharma, R.N. Sharma and P.S. Chandel. The person, who has inspected the spot, Sh. Pankaj Sharma, investigator R.N. Sharma and final surveyor Girish Sharma, 20 2026:HHC:34760 have not been examined, as witnesses. She has further admitted that she has not been authorized by the company to make the statement, voluntarily stated that she is having authorization letter, with her. Lastly, she has admitted that as per the verification report, driver of the offending vehicle was having the valid driving license. 30. RW3 Satish Kumar, Secretary Gram Panchayat Khabal, has proved the copy of parivar register as Ext. RW3/A. As per the copy of parivar register, name of Vidya Prakash son of Sh. Sar Singh, has been mentioned at Sr. No. 33. 31. RW4 Pankaj Sharma, has been appointed as surveyor/loss assessor, by the Company. He has visited the spot. He has prepared the report Ext. RW2/C. Respondent No. 1, Moti Lal, disclose to him that at the time of accident, six persons were travelling in the vehicle and no luggage was found in the vehicle. Five persons have expired. He has visited the spot on 11.09.2013, at 5:00 PM. 32. So far as the documentary evidence adduced by the respondents, is concerned, Ext. RW1/A is the copy of 21 2026:HHC:34760 driving license of respondent No. 2; Ext. RW2/A is the copy of insurance policy; Ext. RW2/B is the copy of offending vehicle’s particular; Ext. RW2/C is the surveyor’s report; Ext. RW2/D is the report of R.N. Sharma, investigator; Ext. RW2/E is the letter dated 16.03.2015; Ext. RW2/F is the clarification received under RTI Act; and Ext. RW3/A is the copy of parivar register. 33. On the basis of the above evidence, Mr. Ashwani K.Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, for the Insurance Company, has vehemently argued that it has been proved by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was Goods Carrying Vehicle and the persons were travelling in the said vehicle as gratuitous passengers. As such, Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner, on account of gratuitous passengers. The said arguments are devoid of merit, as, according to the document Ext. RW2/B, the seating capacity of the offending vehicle, including driver, is five. Although, the said vehicle is a Goods Carrier, but, once, the said vehicle was authorized to carry five passengers, including the driver, then, it does not lie in the 22 2026:HHC:34760 mouth of the Insurance Company to urge that there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. More so, when, as per the registration certificate of the offending vehicle, the same was expressly authorized to carry five passengers, including the driver, then, merely because six persons were found travelling in the offending vehicle, out of whom, five have succumbed to their injuries, the same would not constitute a breach of the policy conditions. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly concluded that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 34. Even otherwise, the owner of the offending vehicle has taken a specific stand that the persons, who were travelling in the offending vehicle, were the owners of the goods and they had purchased wheat flour, rice, edible oil, onions and other daily consumables from different shops, at Chirgaon Bazaar, as, on the next day, ‘Jagra’ (local fair), was to be celebrated, in their village. The owner of the offending vehicle, while appearing in the witness box, has also deposed to this effect. When suggestion was put to him 23 2026:HHC:34760 that the offending vehicle was not carrying the above articles, he has denied the said suggestion. 35. So far as the evidence of RW2 Shashi Saini, is concerned, her evidence is not liable to be taken into consideration, as, the same does not fall with the definition of ‘direct evidence’. As per the provisions of Section 60 of Evidence Act (Section 55 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), she is neither the surveyor nor did she vist the spot and the documents, tendered by her, which, were admittedly prepared by other persons, who have not been examined, cannot be taken into consideration. 36. So far as the document Ext. RW2/F, which, is the information supplied under the Right to Information Act, is concerned, the Public Information Officer, Department of Welfare, District Shimla, has provided the information qua Vidya Sagar son of Sh. Sar Singh, according to which, the Welfare Department is providing disability pension to Vidya Sagar, son of Sar Singh, on account of 50% locomotor/ orthopedic disability, from the year 2000, till March, 2001. However, the record pertaining to the year 2005, is stated to 24 2026:HHC:34760 have been destructed. As such, the requisite information could not be provided, from this document. The accident in question had taken place in the year 2013. The documents heavily relied upon, qua the fact that respondent No. 2 was receiving disability pension, are not sufficient to conclude that the driving license of respondent No. 2 was not valid. Moreover, in order to exonerate itself from the liability to indemnify the owner, it was for the Insurance Company to plead that owner of the offending vehicle, despite knowing the fact that the driver was not possessing a valid driving license, had handed over the vehicle to him, whereas, respondent No. 1, while appearing in the witness box, not only tendered a copy of the driving license, but, also stated that his driver was having a valid license. In such circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the Insurance Company has been able to prove fundamental breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 37. At the cost of repetition, the offending vehicle was authorized to carry five persons, including the driver, whereas, it has been proved, in this case, that there were six 25 2026:HHC:34760 persons travelling in the vehicle. In such situation, the next material question, which arises for determination before this Court is whether the Insurance Company is liable to be exonerated from its obligation to indemnify the owner? The answer to this question is in negative, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Anjana Shyam, reported as AIR 2007 SC 2870, has held that in case, where passengers more than the authorized seating capacity of the vehicle were travelling, the Company is not exonerated from its liability to indemnify the owner. Relevant paragraphs 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 26 2026:HHC:34760 awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. 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) 27 2026:HHC:34760 38. The decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anjana Shyam’s case (supra), has again been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Versus K.N. Poonam & Ors. reported as 2015 (15) SCC 297. Relevant paragraphs 38 to 40, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “38. Having arrived at the conclusion that the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation was limited to six persons travelling inside the vehicle only and that the liability to pay the others was that of the owner, we, in this case, are faced with the same problem as had surfaced in Anjana Shyam's case (supra). 39. The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur 's case (supra) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur 's case. 40. In other words, the Appellant Insurance Company shall deposit with the Tribunal the total amount of the amounts awarded in favour of the awardees within two months from the date of this order and the same is to be utilized to satisfy the claims of those claimants not covered by the Insurance Policy along with the persons so covered. The Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner 28 2026:HHC:34760 of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six Awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the Insurance Company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the Awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle.” (self emphasis supplied) 39. Judging the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as referred to above, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from indemnifying the owner, on the sole ground that one passenger, more than the seating capacity, was found travelling in the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner, in respect of the highest four awards, and for the fifth claim, the Insurance Company is liable to deposit the amount in the first instance and thereafter, recover the same from the owner. 40. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum, which is liable to be interfered with and keeping in view the prevailing rates of interest of the nationalized banks, the ends of justice would be met, if the 29 2026:HHC:34760 rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. Ordered accordingly. 41. As stated above, the award has also been assailed, on the ground of quantum of compensation. 42. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are beneficial in nature, where, the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities. As such, the strict rules of Evidence Act, are not applicable. Also, it is no longer res integra that the Court/Tribunal, while deciding the claim petitions, should make endeavour that the amount of compensation, to be awarded, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 43. Being guided by the above proposition, this Court, would now proceed further to ascertain whether the amount, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, in the present case, is liable to be interfered with. FAO No. 81 of 2018 44. In the present case, the claimants have sought compensation on account of death of Sh. Diwan Singh, in a motor vehicle accident, who, as per the petition, was 28 30 2026:HHC:34760 years of age. In the postmortem report Ext. PW1/C, the age of Sh. Diwan Singh has been mentioned as 24 years. However, when the petitioners themselves have pleaded that the age of Sh. Diwan Singh was 28 years, then, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings, qua the age of Sh. Diwan Singh. Even, as per the document Ext. PW1/A, which is the age certificate issued by the competent authority, the date of birth of Sh. Diwan Singh has been recorded as 27.12.1985, and the accident had taken place on 07th/08th September, 2013. As such, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age of the deceased to be 28 years. Hence, those findings do not require any interference. 45. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Sh. Diwan Singh, during his life time, as Rs. 6,000/. The said findings, to the considered opinion of this Court, do not require any interference. In this case, the learned Tribunal has given 50% increase in the monthly income of Sh. Diwan Singh, on account of his future prospects. The said findings, to the considered opinion of this Court, require interference, in view of the decision of 31 2026:HHC:34760 Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corportation, 2009 (6) SCC 121”, and considering the fact that Diwan Singh was working in unorganized sector, 40% increase is liable to be added, on account of his future prospects. The relevant para 59.4 of the Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), has been reproduced, as under: “59.4 In case the deceased was selfemployed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 46. Adding the 40% increase to the monthly income of Sh. Diwan Singh, his income comes to Rs. 8,400/ {Rs. 6,000/ + Rs. 2,400/ (40%)}. 47. Keeping in view the number of claimants, which are four in number, i.e. widow, two minor sons and mother of Sh. Diwan Singh, learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th, out of the said amount. Deducting, 1/4th, from the monthly income of Sh. Diwan Singh, on account of his 32 2026:HHC:34760 personal expenses, had he been alive, (which is held to be Rs. 8,400/), the contribution towards his family, thus, comes to Rs. 8,400/ Rs. 2,100/ (1/4th) = Rs. 6,300/. 48. Keeping in view the age of Sh. Diwan Singh, at the time of his death, which has been held to be 28 years, the learned Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of ‘17’, in the present case. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners comes to Rs. 6,300/ x 12 x 17 = Rs. 12,85,200/. 49. The learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded Rs. 25,000/ as funeral charges, Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of consortium to the wife (claimant No. 1) and Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of love and affection to minor claimants. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 50. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are also held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/; Rs. 33 2026:HHC:34760 15,000/; and Rs. 40,000/ respectively, under the heads: ‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’. 51. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, all the petitioners are held entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. The relevant paras 21 to 24 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses `spousal consortium', `parental consortium', and `filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husbandwife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, cooperation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for 34 2026:HHC:34760 loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions worldover have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 35 2026:HHC:34760 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under `loss of consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 52. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 12,85,200/ 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,60,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ each) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 / _________________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 14,75,200/. ________________________________________________________ 53. The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 14,75,200/. 54. Viewed thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 81 of 2018, is reduced from Rs. 16,02,000/ to Rs. 14,75,200/, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The 36 2026:HHC:34760 ultimate liablity to pay the amount of compensation is on the Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle. FAO (MVA) No. 82 of 2018 55. In the present case, the claimants, being widow and mother of Sh. Jishan Lal, have sought compensation on account of his death, in motor vehicle accident, involving the offending vehicle. Sh. Jishan Lal is pleaded to be 24 years of age at the time of his death and an agriculturist by profession. In the postmortem report Ext. PW1/C, his age has been pleaded as 26 years. The learned Tribunal, however, has taken his age as 24 years, on the basis of copy of parivar register Ext. PW1/E, wherein, his date of birth has been mentioned as 25.12.1989. Meaning thereby, at the time of his death, Jishan Lal was about 24 years of age. As such, this Court finds no infirmity in the finding of the learned Tribunal with regard to the age of the deceased and the same is upheld. 56. With regard to the income of Sh. Jishan Lal, as per the pleadings, he was an agriculturist and earning Rs. 37 2026:HHC:34760 14,000/ per month. The learned Tribunal, however, has taken his income as Rs. 6,000/ per month, which, according to the considered opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference by this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in adding 50% in the monthly income of Sh. Jishan Lal, on account of his future prospects, whereas, the same is required to be added at the rate of 40%, as he was working in unorganized sector and in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), his contribution thus comes to Rs. 6,000/ + Rs. 2,400/ (40%) = Rs. 8,400/. 57. Keeping in view the number of dependents i.e. two, 1/3rd amount is required to be deducted, on account of personal expenses of deceased, had he been alive. Hence, after deducting 1/3rd amount from his earnings, his contribution comes to Rs. 8,400/ minus 1/3rd (Rs. 2,800) = Rs. 5,600/. 58. Keeping in view the age of Sh. Jishan Lal, at the time of his death, which has been held to be 24 years, the learned Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier of 38 2026:HHC:34760 ‘18’, in the present case. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners comes to Rs. 5,600/ x 12 x 18 = Rs. 12,09,600/. 59. The learned Tribunal has erred in awarding Rs. 25,000/ as funeral expenses and Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of consortium to the wife (claimant No. 1). The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 60. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are also held entitled to compensation under the heads: ‘loss of estate’ (Rs. 15,000/), ‘funeral expenses’ (Rs. 15,000/), and ‘loss of consortium’ (Rs. 40,000/). 61. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram’s case (supra), both the petitioners are held entitled for the amount of loss of consortium. 62. Thus, the total entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 39 2026:HHC:34760 1. Loss of income = Rs. 12,09,600/ 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.80,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ each) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 / _____________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 13,19,600/. ________________________________________________________ 63. The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 13,19,600/. 64. Thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 82 of 2018, is reduced from Rs. 14,21,000/ to Rs. 13,19,600/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Insurance Company is liable to pay this amount. FAO (MVA) No. 83 of 2018 65. In this case, the claimants being the widow, minor daughter and mother of Sh. Rajwant, have filed the claim petition, seeking compensation, on account of the death of Sh. Rajwant, in the accident, involving the offending vehicle. As per the claim petition, Sh. Rajwant, at the time 40 2026:HHC:34760 of his death, was 26 years of age, an agriculturist by profession and earning Rs. 14,000/ per month. 66. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of Sh. Rajwant at the time of his death, as 26 years, on the basis of the copy of parivar register Ext. PW1/E. The said findings do not require any interference. 67. The learned Tribunal has taken the monthly income of Sh. Rajwant, during his life time, as Rs. 6,000/, which does not call for any interference. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in granting an addition of 50%, on account of future prospects of Sh. Rajwant, had he been alive. Whereas, in view of the dictum of Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the addition is required to be made at the rate of 40%, as, Sh. Rajwant was working in the unorganized sector. As such, his income, for the purpose of assessing the amount of compensation, comes to Rs. 6,000/ + Rs. 2,400/ (40%) = Rs. 8,400/. 68. Keeping in view the number of dependents, the learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd, out of the said 41 2026:HHC:34760 amount, on account of personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive. Thus, his contribution comes to Rs. 8,400/ Rs. 2,800/ (1/3rd) = Rs. 5,600/ per month. 69. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘17’, which does not require any interference, in view of the age of Sh. Rajwant, at the time of accident. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners comes to Rs. 5,600/ x 12 x 17 = Rs. 11,42,400/. 70. The learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as funeral charges, Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of consortium to the wife (claimant No. 1) and Rs. 1,00,000/ as loss of love and affection to minor claimant No. 2. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 71. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are only held entitled for compensation under the heads: ‘loss of estate’ (Rs. 15,000/), ‘funeral expenses’ (Rs. 15,000/), and ‘loss of consortium’ (Rs. 40,000/). 42 2026:HHC:34760 72. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram’s case (supra), all the claimants are held entitled to compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 73. Thus, the total entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 11,42,400/ 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,20,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ each) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 / _____________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 12,92,400/. ________________________________________________________ 74. Viewed thus, the entitlement of the petitioners, with a view to grant just compensation, comes to Rs. 12,92,400/. 75. Thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be reduced. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 83 of 2018, is reduced from Rs. 14,49,000/ to Rs. 12,92,400/, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the 43 2026:HHC:34760 petition, till realization of the whole amount, from respondents No. 1 to 3. However, the ultimate liability to pay the compensation is upon respondent No. 3 i.e. Insurance Company. FAO (MVA) No. 84 of 2018 76. In the present case, the claimants, being parents of Sh. Sandeep, have sought compensation, on account of death of Sh. Sandeep, who was 27 years of age, and sustained fatal injuries in the accident in question, involving the offending vehicle. As per the claimants, their son was an agriculturist by profession and was earning Rs. 14,000/ per month. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of Sh. Sandeep, as 28 years, on the basis of copy of parivar register Ext. PW1/E. As such, the said findings do not require any interference, being based upon the documentary evidence, the rebuttal of which, has not been done by the respondents. 77. So far as the earnings are concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of Sh. Sandeep, during his life time, as Rs. 6,000/ per month. The said findings do not call for any interference. 44 2026:HHC:34760 78. The learned Tribunal however, has erred in granting 50% increase in the monthly earnings of Sh. Sandeep. The said findings require interference, as, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), where, the deceased is working in the unorganized sector, the contribution is liable to be increased at the rate of 40%, towards future prospects. Thus, his earnings comes to Rs. 6,000/ + Rs. 2,400/ (40%) = Rs. 8,400/ per month. 79. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted half of his income towards personal expenses, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), Sh. Sandeep was a bachelor, as such, 50% amount is liable to be deducted, towards his personal expenses, had he been alive. Thus, his contribution comes to Rs. 8,400/ Rs. 4,200/ (50%) = Rs. 4,200/. 80. The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘17’. The same does not require any interference, in view of the age of Sh. Sandeep, at the time of 45 2026:HHC:34760 accident. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners comes to Rs. 4,200/ x 12 x 17 = Rs. 8,56,800/. 81. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as funeral charges. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 82. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are held entitled for compensation under the heads: ‘loss of estate’ (Rs. 15,000/), ‘funeral expenses’ (Rs. 15,000/), and ‘loss of consortium’ (Rs. 40,000/). 83. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram’s case (supra), both the claimants are held entitled for the amount of loss of consortium. 84. Thus, the total entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 8,56,800/ 46 2026:HHC:34760 2. Loss of consortium = Rs. 80,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ each) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 / _____________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 9,66,800/. ________________________________________________________ 85. The entitlement of the petitioners, with a view to grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 9,66,800/. 86. Thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 84 of 2018, is enhanced from Rs. 9,43,000/ to Rs. 9,66,800/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. In view of the discussion as made above, especially in para 39, the Insurance Company would deposit the amount of compensation at first instance and thereafter recover the same from owner. Ordered accordingly. FAO (MVA) No. 85 of 2018 87. In this case, the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, being parents of Sh. Ajay Kumar, who 47 2026:HHC:34760 expired in the accident in question, involving the offending vehicle. The age of Ajay Kumar has been pleaded as 25 years. He is stated to be an agriculturist, earning Rs. 14,000/ per month. 88. The learned Tribunal has taken the age of Sh. Ajay Kumar as 25 years, on the basis of parivar register Ext. PW1/C. The said findings, do not require any interference, as, nothing contrary has been produced by the respondents, from which, it can be said that Sh. Ajay Kumar was not 25 years of age, at the time of his death. 89. The income of Sh. Ajay Kumar has rightly been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 6,000/ per month and the same does not require any interference. Similarly, the learned Tribunal has applied the appropriate multiplier in the present case, and rightly deducted 50% of the income, towards personal expenses, had he been alive. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in granting 50% increase in the income of Sh. Ajay Kumar, on account of his future prospects, whereas, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the 48 2026:HHC:34760 same is required to be given at the rate of 40%, as, he was working in the unorganized sector. Thus, his income comes to Rs. 6,000/ + Rs. 2,400/ (40%) = Rs. 8,400/. 90. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), Sh. Ajay Kumar was bachelor, as such, 50% amount is liable to be deducted, on account of his personal expenses, had he been alive. Thus, his contribution comes to Rs. 8,400/ Rs. 4,200/ (50%) = Rs. 4,200/. 91. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of 18, which does not call for any interference, in view of the age of Sh. Ajay Kumar, at the time of accident. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners comes to Rs. 4,200/ x 12 x 18 = Rs. 9,07,200/. 92. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/ as funeral charges. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra). 49 2026:HHC:34760 93. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate of Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), the claimants are held entitled for compensation under the heads: ‘loss of estate’ (Rs. 15,000/), ‘funeral expenses’ (Rs. 15,000/), and ‘loss of consortium’ (Rs. 40,000/). 94. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram’s case (supra), both the claimants are held entitled for compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 95. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 9,07,200/ 2. Loss of consortium = Rs. 80,000/ (Rs. 40,000/ each) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/ 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 / _____________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 10,17,200/. ________________________________________________________ 96. The entitlement of the petitioners, with a view to grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 10,17,200/. 50 2026:HHC:34760 97. Thus, the amount of compensation is liable to be enhanced. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 85 of 2018, is enhanced from Rs. 9,97,000/ to Rs. 10,17,200/ along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The Insurance Company is liable to pay this amount. 98. The award passed by the learned Tribunal, in all the claim petitions, is modified, accordingly. 99. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 100. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. 101. Record be sent back. 102. Copy of the judgment, be placed on record, in the connected appeals. (Virender Singh) 18th August, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD v. VIDYA DEVI AND OTHERS

Judgment text