1 2026:HHC:36002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. :   503 of 2019 a/w FAO (MV) No. : 201 of 2020 Reserved  on   : 18th August, 2026 Decided on     : 25th  August 2026 Uploaded on   : 25th August, 2026 1. FAO(MV) No. 503 of 2019 Soma Devi & Another …Appellants Versus Managing Director HRTC and Another …..Respondents 2. FAO(MV) No. 201 of 2020 Managing Director HRTC …Appellants Versus Soma Devi & Others ....Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes ____________________________________________________________ 1. FAO (MV) No.503 of 2019 For the Appellant : Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents      : Ms.   Shubh   Mahajan,   Senior Advocate with Mr. Naresh Mahajan, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.2. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:36002 2. FAO (MV) No.201 of 2020 For the Appellant : Ms. Sarita Rana, Advocate, vice Mr. Vikas Rajput, Advocate. For the Respondents      : Mr. Lakshay Parihar, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 2. Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate for respondent No.3. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge Both the above titled appeals are being decided by a common judgment, as both the appeals have been filed, under   Section   173   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act,   (hereinafter referred   to   as   the   ‘M.V.   Act’),   against   the   award   dated 20.08.2019,   passed   by   the   learned   Motor   Accident   Claims Tribunal­IV, Shimla, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No.11­S/2 of 2018, titled as Soma Devi   and   Another   versus   Managing   Director   Himachal   Road Transport Corporation & Another. 2. By way of award dated 20.08.2019, the learned Tribunal   has   partly   allowed   the   claim   petition,   filed   by   the appellants in FAO (MV) No. 503 of 2019 and awarded a sum of Rs.12,96,000/­ along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment and on the basis   of   the   contributory   negligence,   contribution   of   the deceased has been assessed as 50%.  As such, the appellants in 3 2026:HHC:36002 FAO (MV) No. 503 of 2019 were held entitled to compensation to the extent of 50%. 3. For   the   sake   of   convenience,   parties   to   the present   appeals,   are   hereinafter   referred   to,   in   the   same manner,   in   which,   they   were   referred   to,   by   the   learned Tribunal. Brief Facts:­ 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of the present appeals, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1. The   petitioners,   being   parents   of   deceased Sachin Thakur, had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of   M.V.   Act,   before   the   learned   Tribunal,   against   the respondents,   being   owner   and   driver   of   bus   No.HP65­5696, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’). 4.2. According to the petitioners, their son Sachin Thakur, met with an accident on 15.10.2017, at about 1.45 p.m.,   at   Salah,   Sundernagar,   while   he   was   driving   Scooty bearing   registration   No.HP31B­5743,   on   his   way   back   to Sundernagar side from Mandi side, after refilling the petrol in his Scooty. According to the petitioners, at the relevant time, respondent No.2 was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and 4 2026:HHC:36002 negligent manner and hit the Scooty. Consequently, Sachin crushed under the tyre of the offending vehicle and died on the spot. 4.3. Age   of   deceased   Sachin   Thakur   has   been pleaded   as   18   years   and   he   was   a   student,   studying   in   +2 standard, at the time of accident. 4.4. The matter was also reported to the police of Police Station, Sundernagar, where, FIR No.0200/2017, under Sections 279 and 304­A IPC, has been registered, against the deceased. 4.5. Petitioners have pleaded about their bright past and bleak future. According to them, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. As   such,   they   have   sought   compensation   of   Rs.25,00,000/­, along with interest @ 12% per annum, from the respondents. Stand of the respondents before the learned Tribunal 5. When,   put   to   notice,   the   claim   petition   has been contested by the respondents. 5.1. Respondent   No.1   has   filed   separate   reply,   in which, he has taken the preliminary objections that the claim petition   is   not   maintainable;   the   petitioners   have   not approached the learned Tribunal with clean hands; the owner of 5 2026:HHC:36002 Scooty and its insurer have not been impleaded as party, as Sachin was driving the Scooty in a rash and negligent manner. 5.3. On merits, the contents of the petition have, mainly,   been   denied   for   want   of   knowledge. However,   the factum of accident and registration of FIR, has not been denied. According to respondent No.1, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of Sachin. 6. Respondent No.2­driver has filed his separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections. On merits, he has denied all the contents of the claim petition, but, the factum of accident has been admitted. According to him, the accident had taken   place,   due   to   rash   and   negligent   driving   of   deceased himself. 7. Thus,   both   the   respondents   have   prayed   for dismissal of the claim petition. 8. Petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply filed by   respondent   No.2,   denying   all   the   contents   of   the   written statement, and reasserting that of the claim petition. 9. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 12.09.2018: 1) Whether   deceased   Sachin   Thakur   died   in   a Motor   Vehicle   Accident   which   took   place   on 6 2026:HHC:36002 15.10.2017, at about 1.45 p.m., while he was on   his   scooter   bearing   No.HP31B­5743   and when reached at place Salah, Sundernagar the same   was   hit   by   an   HRTC   bus   bearing No.HP65­5696 due to which he fell down and crushed   under   the   tyre,   being   driven   by   its driver respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner, as alleged? OPP 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for grant of compensation, if so then what should be the quantum of compensation and from whom? OPP 3). Whether the present petition is not maintainable in its present form, as alleged? OPR 4) Whether   the   petitioners   have   not   approached this   learned   Tribunal   with   clean   hands,   as alleged? OPR 5) Whether the petition filed  by the  petitioner is bad   for   non­joinder   and   mis­joinder   of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 6) Relief. 10. Thereafter,   parties   to   the   lis   were   directed   to adduce evidence. 11. After   closure   of   the   evidence,   the   learned Tribunal,   upon   hearing   learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   has allowed the claim petition of the petitioners, by awarding the compensation, as referred to above. Contentions of the appellants: 12. Aggrieved from the said award, the petitioners have preferred  FAO (MV) No.503 of 2019, before this Court, 7 2026:HHC:36002 mainly, on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly deducted   50%   amount   of   the   compensation,   on   account   of contributory negligence, which, according to them, has not been proved by the respondents. The petitioners have relied upon the statement of PW­3, Suresh Kumar, who is spot/eye witness, who has categorically stated that respondent No.2, was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the scooty of the deceased. 12.1. Award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral, as well as, the documentary evidence, produced by the parties to the  lis before the learned Tribunal. 13. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by setting aside award, by virtue of which, 50% amount of compensation has been ordered to be deducted on account of contributory negligence of Sachin Thakur. Apart   from   this,   a   prayer   has   also   been   made   to enhance the amount of compensation, so that, the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 14. On the other hand, respondent No.1 filed  FAO No.201 of 2020, against the award passed by learned Tribunal, 8 2026:HHC:36002 on the ground, that the learned tribunal has committed grave judicial   error   and   illegality   in   awarding   the   amount   of compensation   and   according   to   the   HRTC,   the   accident,   in question, had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, as, he was driving his scooty, in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the bus. 14.1. Highlighting   the   fact   that   the   FIR   has   been registered against the deceased by the pillion rider, it has been submitted that the HRTC, as well, as respondent No.2, are not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 14.2. By   way   of   FAO   No.   201   of   2020,   HRTC   has sought exoneration from paying the amount of compensation, as according to them, accident, in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. 15. The factum of accident has not been disputed. According to the petitioners, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, whereas, a stand has been taken by the respondents that the deceased himself was negligent, while driving the Scooty and according to them, due to the said reason, FIR has been registered against the deceased, that too, by the pillion rider. 9 2026:HHC:36002 16. Considering the fact that both the parties have assailed the award, by way of the above appeals, as such, the evidence, so adduced, by both the parties, is required to be discussed. 17. PW­1 HHC Kesar Singh, has proved the copy of the   FIR,   Ex.PW­1/A.     He   has   also   stated   that   the   FIR   was registered against the rider of Scooty Sachin Thakur. 18. Petitioner   No.1,   Soma   Devi,   appeared   in   the witness­box,   as   PW­2   and   tendered   her   affidavit,   in   her examination­in­chief,   Ex.PW­2/A,   which   is   based   upon   the assertions, as made, in the claim petition. 19. In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has admitted   that   the   accident   had   taken   place,   on   National Highway, however, she has denied that accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of her son. She has also denied that the suggestion that FIR has been registered against her son. She has also denied in the statement of Tikshit Sen, it has been found that Sachin could not control the Scooty. She has feigned her ignorance that Tikshit Sen was also travelling on the Scooty. Voluntarily stated that the person present there told her in the hospital that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Rest, she 10 2026:HHC:36002 has denied all the suggestions put to her by the learned counsel for the respondents. 20. Petitioners have examined Suresh Kumar (PW­ 3), as eye witness of the accident. He has filed his affidavit, Ex.PW­3/A,     according   to   which,   he   has   deposed   that   on 15.10.2017, at about 1.45 p.m., he was present near Salah, Sundernagar, District Mandi and in the meantime, a Scooty, bearing registration No.HP31­B­5743, which was being driven by Shri Sachin, who, after re­filling petrol in the Scooty, came back to Sundernager side. Subsequently, the offending vehicle, being   driven   by   respondent   No.2,   in   a   rash   and   negligent manner, came from the opposite side and hit the Scooty of the deceased. Consequently, Sachin Thakur, wascrushed under the tyre of the offending vehicle and died on the spot. Number of persons gathered there, who informed the police regarding the accident, which, according to him, had taken place due to the rash   and   negligent   driving   of   respondent   No.2,   but,   despite information, the police official, in order to save respondent No.2, intentionally not lodged the FIR against respondent No.2. 21. This   witness   has   reasserted   the   fact   that   the accident,   in  question,   had   taken  place  due  to  the   rash  and negligence driving of respondent No.2. 11 2026:HHC:36002 22. In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has deposed  that he is  contractor,  by profession. Father  of  the deceased, is not personally known to him and he came in his contact,  after  the accident. He has  admitted that the spot, where, the accident had taken place is on the National Highway. Respondent No.2, was not in his lane and hit the Scooty and deceased was crushed under the rear tyre. After the accident, FIR has been registered against the driver. According to him, when, he has seen the accident, Sachin Thakur, was all alone on the Scooty. He has voluntarily stated that the police was apprised that the accident, in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. 23. PW­4,   Dinesh   Raj   Thakur,   Pharmacist,   has proved the copy of the postmortem report of Sachin as Ex.PW­ 4/A. 24. To rebut this evidence, driver of the offending vehicle appeared in the witness­box as RW­1. He has deposed that on 15.10.2017, he was deployed as driver on the offending vehicle enroute Janjheli to Shimla. When, he, while driving the offending vehicle, reached near Poultry Farm, Salah, he was driving the offending vehicle in his lane, in the meanwhile, one Scooty, upon which, one rider and other was pillion rider, came 12 2026:HHC:36002 under the rear tyre of the offending vehicle. According to him, the accident, in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Scooty and he was on his own lane. The rider of the Scooty left his lane and fell down, due to which, he came underneath the rear tyre. 25. In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has denied   the   suggestion   that   he   has   violated   the   lane   rules. Voluntarily stated that he was driving the vehicle in the proper lane. He has also denied that PW­3 Suresh Kumar was present on the spot and he has informed the police that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which have been put to him. 26. RW­2 Suresh Kumar, Inspector HRTC, deposed that   he   and   JTO   Krishan   Kumar   were   directed   by   the Department to visit the spot. They have visited the spot and investigated the matter and prepared the spot map. The spot map   is   Ex.RW­2/A   and   report   is   Ex.RW­1/A.     He   has   also deposed that the accident in question had taken place on the National Highway. In the said accident, respondent No.2 was neither rash nor negligent, but, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the Scooty, by its rider. 13 2026:HHC:36002 27. This witness has not witnessed the accident, in question. He reached, on the spot, about 15­20 minutes, after the accident. Rest, he has denied all the suggestions, which had been put to him by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 28. Apart from the above oral evidence, the parties have placed on record the documentary evidence. Ex. PW­1/A is copy of FIR, Ex.PW­2/B is legal heirs certificate, Ex.PW­2/C, is death certificate of Scahin Thakur, Ex.PW­4/A is copy of the postmortem   report,   Ex.RW­1/A   is   report   of   Inspector   HRTC, Ex.RW­2/A is spot map, prepared by RW­2. 29. This   is   the   entire   evidence,   adduced   by   the parties before the learned Tribunal. Discussion and Analysis 30. 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   touchstone   of   preponderance   of probabilities. 31. The factum of accident has not been disputed, in this case. However, petitioners have alleged that the accident, in   question   had   taken   place   due   to   the   rash   and   negligent driving of respondent No.2, whereas, respondents have taken 14 2026:HHC:36002 the plea that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of deceased himself. 32. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has deducted 50% of the compensation amount, on the ground of contributory negligence on the part of deceased himself. These findings have been assailed by the petitioners before this Court. 33. Ex. PW­1/A,   copy   of   the   FIR,   is   an   admitted document. The said FIR has been registered against deceased Sachin. FIR has been lodged on the statement of one Tikshit Sen, who has alleged against Sachin, qua rash and negligent driving. As per the FIR, said Tikshit Sen is resident of village Rasmai,   PO   Chatrokhari,   Sundernagar,   District   Mandi,   H.P. Said person has not been examined by the respondents to prove his version, as given by him, in his statement, under Section 154 Cr.PC, which, admittedly, has not been recorded on oath, whereas, petitioners have examined PW­3 Suresh Kumar, who has categorically, stated about the fact that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 34. A statement made on oath carries presumption of truth, as the person, who made the statement, on oath, not only deposes before the Court, but, also withstands the lengthy 15 2026:HHC:36002 cross­examination. In   this   case,   despite   lengthy   cross­ examination,   nothing   could   be   elicited   from   this   witness   to discredit his testimony. Even otherwise, registration of the FIR is not  sine qua non  for seeking the amount of compensation, which is based upon the tortious liability under the provisions of M.V.   Act. When,   the   eye   witness   has   categorically   deposed about the fact that the accident, in question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, then, in the absence of cogent reasons, his statement is not liable to be discarded. Situation would have been otherwise, had the respondents examined the person, who had lodged the FIR, in the present case. 35. In this case, it has vehemently been argued by Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Naresh Mahajan, Advocate, that the version of the person, who lodged the FIR, cannot be discarded, as he was pillion rider on the scooty, driven by Sachin Thakur. It has also been argued that if the said version of Tikshit Sen, was not correct, it was for the petitioners   to   make   a   complaint   to   the   higher   authorities, regarding wrong registration of the FIR. 36. To   the   considered   opinion   of   this   Court,   the above arguments are devoid of merit, as, different persons react 16 2026:HHC:36002 differently, in different situations. The petitioners, who had lost their young son, were under trauma and it cannot be expected from them that they will rush to the police to lodge FIR. No ulterior   motive   can   be   attributed   to   RW­3,   regarding   the accident, in question. He is an independent witness, who was present on the spot and being resident of the same area, his presence on the spot cannot be doubted. 37. As stated above, the proceedings under the M.V. Act, are to be decided on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the present case, the author of the FIR was not examined. Thus,   there   are   two   statements,   one   by   the independent witness Suresh Kumar and another made by the driver of the offending vehicle, who is bound to defend his case. 38. PW­3,   being   an   independent   witness,   has   no motive to depose contrary to the actual and factual position atf the spot. As such, the learned Tribunal  has fallen into error by concluding that the accident, in question, had taken place, due to the contributory negligence of deceased Sachin Thakur. 39. In view of the discussion made above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the accident, in question had taken place due to the rash and negligence of respondent No.2. Moreover, registration of the FIR is not sine qua non for seeking 17 2026:HHC:36002 the amount of compensation, under the M.V. Act. The accident, in  question,  had   taken  place   due  to   the  rash   and  negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.2, which, the petitioners   have   successfully   proved/probabilized,   from   the statement of PW­3. 40. Consequently,   the   findings   recorded   by   the learned Tribunal, by virtue of which, the deceased was held to be contributory negligent, in the accident, in question, are set aside. 41. So far as the prayer qua enhancement of the claim is concerned, it is no longer res integra that the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal, while deciding the claim petition, should be to grant ‘just compensation’ as the M.V. Act, is a beneficial piece of legislation. 42. Now, this Court shall proceed to ascertain the fact   whether   the   amount   of   compensation,   which   has   been awarded to the petitioners, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not. 43. The age of the deceased Sachin Thakur, at the time of his death has been pleaded as 18 years and he was a student. In   the   death   certificate,   issued   by   the   competent 18 2026:HHC:36002 authority, his age has been mentioned as 17 years. As such, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken his age as 17 years. 44. As per the petitioners, their son was a student and his income has been pleaded as Rs.10,000/­ per month. In the   absence   of   any   evidence,   the   said   statement   cannot   be accepted as gospel truth. When, the mother of deceased Sachin Thakur, appeared in the witness­box, she tendered her affidavit in examination­in­chief and deposed that her son was working as contract labour, in the fields of neighbour and he used to cultivate/grow seasonal vegetables. 45. The petitioners are from a rural background. In rural areas, young boy of 17 years ordinarily contributes to his family  income,  by way  of  manual  work. In  the agricultural based   society,   young   men   in   the   family   are   engaged   in multifarious activities to support their household. 46. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that the learned tribunal, in the present case, has rightly assessed   the   earnings   of   Sachin   Thakur,   as   Rs.7,500/­   per month. As   such,   the   said   findings   do   not   require   any interference by this Court. 47. The learned tribunal has rightly given addition of   40%   in   the   established   income   of   the   deceased   towards 19 2026:HHC:36002 future   prospects. However,   while   deducting   50%   income towards the personal expenses, had the deceased been alive, there seems to be a calculation error. Instead of Rs.5375, the same should have been 5250/­. As such, the said findings are modified accordingly. 48. Learned tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘18’, which, according to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarla  Verma  versus  Delhi Transport Corporation and   Another,   (2009)   6   Supreme   Court   Cases   121,  is   the appropriate multiplier. 49. In the present case, the learned Tribunal, has erred in awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/­ under the head ‘loss of love and affection’. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the petitioners are only entitled to compensation under the  conventional heads, namely, ‘loss of estate’, ‘loss of consortium’ and ‘funeral expenses’. The increase of 10%, after every three years, has also been mandated. 50. In   view   of   the   decision   of   Hon’ble   Supreme Court   in  Magma   General  Insurance   Company   Limited  vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, 20 2026:HHC:36002 all the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 51. The   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   thus,   is ascertained as under:­ 1. Loss of contribution  = `11,34,000/­ (Rs.5250/­x12x18) 2. Loss of estate = `15,000/­ 3. Funeral expenses = `15,000/­ 4. Loss of consortium  = `80,000/­(`40,000x2) Total =`12,44,000/­(`11,34,000 + `15,000 +`15,000+ `80,000) 52. Consequently, FAO No.503 of 2019, preferred by the petitioners, is partly allowed. The awarded amount is reduced from `12,96,000/­ to `12,44,000/­, along with interest at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per   annum,   from   the   date   of   filing   the petition, till realization. The ultimate liability to pay the amount is of respondent No.1. 53. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified, in the above terms. 54. So far as FAO No.201 of 2020 is concerned, the same is dismissed. 55. Memo of costs be prepared. 21 2026:HHC:36002 56. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) Judge August 25, 2026 (ps)