1   2026:HHC:39177 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No. 100 of 2017 Date of Decision: 11.9.2026 The New India Ass. Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Smt. Asha Devi & ors. …..Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate,for respondents No. 1 to 4. Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. Shashi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. __________________________________________________________ Virender Singh, Judge (oral) : Appellant-New India Association Co. Ltd. Company has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘M.V. Act’), against the award dated 3.12.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 7 of 2015, titled as, ‘Asha & others versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & anr.’. 2   2026:HHC:39177 2. By way of award dated 3.12.2016, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4, and awarded a sum of Rs.16,70,352/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. However, the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation along with interest has been fastened upon the Insurance Company (appellant). Brief Facts:- 3. For the sake of convenience, parties to the present appeal, are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to by the learned Tribunal. 4. Necessary facts, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:- 4.1. The petitioners-claimants, being widow, minor sons and mother of deceased Dinesh Kumar had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of M.V. Act, before the learned Tribunal. They have sought the compensation on account of death of Dinesh Kumar, in a road side accident, involving Vehicle (Tata 407 water Tanker) No.HP 47-0274 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No. 2, driven by respondent No.3 and insured with respondent No.1. 4.1 As per the petitioners, the accident had taken place on 15.9.2014, near Hotel AARK, Panjpulla road, GPO Dalhousie, at about 7:25 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving 3   2026:HHC:39177 of respondent No. 3. Information regarding the accident was given to Police Station, Dalhousie, upon which FIR No. 54 of 2014, was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC. 4.2 As per the claim petition, deceased Dinesh Kumar was travelling in the offending vehicle, as a Cleaner. 4.3. According to the petitioners, deceased Dinesh Kumar, at the time of of his death, was 31 years old and he was earning Rs.5,650/-per month. Alongwith the salary, he was earning a sum of Rs.3000/- per month from the agriculture. Thus, his total income is stated to be Rs. 8,650/-. 4.4. Since the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as such, it has been prayed that the amount of compensation of Rs.23,50,000/, along with interest @12% be awarded to the petitioners, against 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/Insurance-Company, has filed reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger travelling in the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, as such, his risk was not covered, by the Insurance-Company. In addition to this, a plea has also been 4   2026:HHC:39177 taken that respondent No. 3-driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle,and the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply by the owner, in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. 5.2 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied for want of knowledge. 5.3 Respondent No.2 has filed his separate reply by taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition. On merits, the contents of para-6 of the petitioner have been admitted by pleading that deceased Dinesh Kumar was getting a sum of Rs. 5,650/- per month, at the time of accident. While replying to para-24 of the petition, a specific stand has been taken that Dinesh Kumar was travelling in the offending vehicle as a Cleaner, on the date of accident. 5.4 Respondent No. 3 has filed separate reply by taking the similar preliminary objections, which have been taken by respondent No. 2. The factum of accident has not been disputed, however, he has taken the plea that he was driving the vehicle, in a very careful manner, but due to mechanical defect, in the vehicle, the accident in question had taken place. 5   2026:HHC:39177 5.5. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied mainly for want of knowledge. 6. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 16.1.2016: 1. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation on account of death of deceased Dinesh Kumar in an accident of vehicle No. HP47- 0274(Tata 407))due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 on 15.9.2014 near hotel AARK Panjpulla road GPO, Dalhousie Distt. Chamba and from whom?OPP 2. Whether this petition is not maintainable ?OPR-1 3. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file this petition?OPR-1. 4.Whether the deceased was un-authorised/gratuitous passenger in the vehicle in question?OPR-1. 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven without effective and valid driving licence and in contravention of terms and conditions of the insurance policy?OPR- 1. 6 Relief 8. Thereafter, parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 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 a sum of 6   2026:HHC:39177 Rs. 16,70,352/-, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing the petition, till its realization. The learned Tribunal has fastened the liability to pay compensation upon respondent No. 1-Insurance Company, by further making stipulation in the award that in case respondent No. 1 fails to deposit the award within a period of three months, from the date of decision of the award, then, respondent No. 1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum. Contentions of the appellant (Insurer-Company) 9. Appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the award mainly, on the ground, that the claimants have failed to prove negligence of respondent No. 3, while driving the offending vehicle, by leading cogent evidence; the learned Tribunal has awarded exorbitant amount of compensation to the claimants in violation of the settled proposition of law; and deceased Dinesh Kumar was not third party, rather, he was employee of respondent No. 2. 9.1. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, appearing for the appellant (Insurance Company) has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by exonerating the Insurance Company to pay the amount. 7   2026:HHC:39177 Contentions of learned Counsel for the respondents (claimants) 10. Per contra, Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 (claimants), has supported the award and pleaded that the grounds, which have been taken by the Insurance-Company, are beyond the pleadings, as in the pleadings, before the learned Tribunal, the Insurance-Company has taken a plea that deceased Dinesh Kumar was travelling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger. In addition to this, it has been prayed that in order to achieve the legislative intent, the awarded amount may kindly be enhanced, so that the same could fall within the definition of “just compensation”. Contentions of learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6 (owner and driver) 11. The learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 and respondent No.6 have supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and it has been prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. Analysis and Discussions 12. First of all, coming to the plea, which has been taken by the appellant-Insurance Company, in the present case, qua the fact that deceased Dinesh was not a 3rd party, rather, he was employee of respondent No. 2, the said plea is beyond 8   2026:HHC:39177 pleadings, as in the reply to the claim petition, before the learned tribunal, in para-2 thereof, a prayer has been made that he was gratuitous passenger, travelling in the offending vehicle, at the time of accident. Admittedly, the said ground, which has been taken by the Insurance-Company is made beyond pleadings, as such, the same is not liable to be taken into consideration and the same is rejected. 13. Perusal of the record shows that the factum of accident has not been disputed, by respondents No. 2 and 3, in the present case. Registration of the FIR has been admitted by respondents No. 2 and 3, which is the prima-facie proof of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. The copy of FIR has been proved as Ext. PW1/F, in which, allegations of rash and negligent driving have been levelled against respondent No.3. 14. Although, in the present case, respondent No. 3 has taken the plea that the accident in question has taken place due to sudden mechanical defect, which had occurred in the offending vehicle, at the time of accident in question, admittedly, in order to prove/probabilize the said defence, neither respondent No. 2 nor respondent No. 3 have placed on record any mechanical report, from which, it can be inferred that the accident in question had taken place, due to sudden mechanical defect, which had occurred, in the offending vehicle. 9   2026:HHC:39177 15. The proceedings under the M.V.Act are summary in nature, where liability of the tort feasor is to be fixed on the touchstone of preponderance of the probabilities. If the case of the petitioners, as has been averred in the claim petition, in the light of the admission made by respondents No. 2 and 3, is seen, then, it has rightly been held by the learned Tribunal that the accident had taken place, due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3. Hence, the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is inconsequential, and the same is rejected. 16. In this case, the quantum of compensation has been assailed by the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioners has also sought enhancement of compensation, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 17. It is no longer res-integra that the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal should be to award the just compensation to the claimants. Since the award has also been assailed on the ground of quantum, by the Insurance Company and petitioners, as such, this Court would now proceed further to ascertain, as to whether the amount of compensation, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or requires any interference by this Court. 10 2026:HHC:39177 18. The age of deceased Dinesh Kumar, at the time of death has been pleaded as 31 years, by contending that his date of birth was 13.5.1983. In the post-mortem report, Ext. PW1/B, the age of deceased Dinesh Kumar has been mentioned as 32 years. The petitioners, in order to demonstrate the date of birth of Dinesh Kumar, have relied upon the copy of Pariwar Register, Ext. PW1/D, in which date of birth of deceased Dinesh Kumar has been pleaded as 13.5.1983. Meaning thereby, at the time of death, i.e. on 15.9.2014, his age was 31 years. 19. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘16’, in the present case, which, according to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) & others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, is the appropriate multiplier. The income of deceased Dinesh Kumar, during his lifetime, has been taken by the learned Tribunal as Rs. 5,650/-, as deposed by respondent No. 2. As such, the income of the deceased is not liable to be interfered with, by this Court. 20. The learned Tribunal has granted 50% addition in the said income, on account of future prospects. While doing so, the learned Tribunal has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Rajesh & others vs. Rajbir & others’, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 54. The said findings are required to be interfered with, in 11 2026:HHC:39177 view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680. 21. Keeping in view the age of deceased Dinesh Kumar, as well as, the fact that he was working in unorganized sector, 40% income is liable to be added, in the income of Dinesh Kumar, which as been held to be @ Rs. 5650/-per month. Thus, his total income comes to Rs. 5650/-+ Rs.2260/-= Rs. 7910/-. 22. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/4th income of deceased Dinesh, on account of personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive. Thus, after deducting the 1/4th towards personal expenses, his established income comes to Rs. 7910/- - Rs. 1,977/- (1/4th of Rs.7910/-)= Rs. 5,933/-. Thus, the petitioners are held entitled to Rs. 5933/- x 12 x 16 =Rs.11,39,136/-. 23. As pointed out by learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs. 50,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses and cost of litigation’, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to petitioner No. 1, under the head ‘loss of consortium’ a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards love and affection and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards expectation of life of the deceased. However, keeping in view Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), amount under 12 2026:HHC:39177 conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively. Para 59.8 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “ 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.15,000/-, respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 24. As such, the said findings are liable to be interfered with, by reducing the amount accordingly. 25. 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, all the claimants are held entitled for the amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Relevant paragraphs 21 to 24, are reproduced as under:- 21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Seth(supra) 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 husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of “company society, corporation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of “parental 13 2026:HHC:39177 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 parents has lost their minor child, or unmarried son of 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 vehi cle accidents under the Act. A fe 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. 26. All the claimants are, thus, entitled for the amount of compensation, under the head, ‘Loss of Consortium’. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of contribution = Rs. 11,39,136/- 2. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000. 3. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/-. 4. Loss of consortium = Rs. 1,60,000/-. 14 2026:HHC:39177 Total = Rs. 11,39,136 + Rs. 15,000/- + Rs. 15,000/- +Rs. 1,60,000/- = Rs. 13,29,136/-. 27. In view of the above, the amount of compensation is ordered to be reduced from Rs. 16,70,352/- to Rs.13,29,136/-. 28. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum, as such, the same is not liable to be interfered with. 29. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The awarded amount is reduced, in the above terms. The claimants are held entitled for the amount of Rs. 13,29,136/- along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of the petition. However, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award. 30. In view of the above, now, the amount of compensation is ordered to be apportioned against claimants No.1 to 4, as under:- Claimant No.1 (widow) = 40% Claimants No.2 & 3(sons) = 25% each Claimant No.4 (mother) = 10% 31. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in the above terms. 32. Memo of costs be prepared. 15 2026:HHC:39177 33. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 34. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 11.9.2026 Judge (kalpana)