1 2026:HHC:7671 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MVA) Nos. 254 & 444 of 2017 Reserved on  :  25 th   February, 2026 Decided on      :    18 th   March, 2026 1. FAO (MVA) No.254 of 2017 Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.        .......Appellant Versus Jeewana  Devi and Others ...Respondents 2. FAO (MVA) No.444 of 2017 Jeewana Devi & Others .......Appellants Versus Vikas Guleria and Others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. 1. FAO No. 254 of 2017 For the appellant: Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.   Vikrant   Chandel,   Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Reham  Tulla,  Advocate  vice Mr.   Devender   K.   Sharma, Advocate   for   respondents   No.2 and 3. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:7671 2. FAO No. 444 of 2017 For the appellant: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate For the respondents: Mr. Reham  Tulla,  Advocate  vice Mr.   Devender   K.   Sharma, Advocate,   for   respondents   No.1 and 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.3. Virender Singh, Judge The above titled appeals are being disposed of, by a common judgment, as both these appeals have arisen out of the   award   dated   19.10.2016,   passed   by   learned   Motor Accidents   Claims   Tribunal­III,   Mandi,   District   Mandi,   H.P. (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   MACT’),   in   Claim   Petition No.34/2012, titled as Jeewana Devi versus Vikas Guleria & Others. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT. 3. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeals, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:­ 3.1. Claimant   Jeewana   Devi,   unfortunate   mother   of Shri Sandeep Chauhan, has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), seeking compensation on account of death 3 2026:HHC:7671 of her son Sandeep Chauhan, in road side accident involving vehicle   No.HP65­4420,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the ‘offending vehicle’), being owned by respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3.2. The claimant has sought the relief on the ground that on 18.10.2011, her son Sandeep Chauhan, along with Matul Chauhan, was coming back to home on motorcycle No.HP33B­1697, and at about 8.30 p.m., when, they reached at   a   place   Rani­ki­Bain,   meanwhile,   the   offending   vehicle, being driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner, reached there and hit the motorcycle being driven by the son of the claimant. 3.3. Consequently,   the   rider,   as   well   as,   the   pillion rider sustained injuries and both, the motorcyclist and the pillion rider, died on the spot. Their dead bodies were taken to hospital for postmortem examination. 3.4. The information regarding the incident was given to the police of Police Station Balh, where FIR No.254/11, dated 18.10.2011, under Sections 279, 201 and 304­A of the IPC and Section 187 of M.V. Act, was registered. 3.5. According to the claimant, her son, at the time of his death, was about 25 years of age and was working as 4 2026:HHC:7671 Assistant Engineer in Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department and was earning Rs.18,000/­ per month. As per the   claimant,   the   accident   has   solely   been   occurred   on account   of   rash   and   negligent   driving   attributed   to respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle. 4. On the basis of the above facts, the compensation of Rs.50,00,000/­  (fifty  lacs),  along  with  18%  interest has been sought from the respondents. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents. 6. Respondents   No.1   and   2   have   filed   their   joint reply, in which, they have taken the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable, as no accident had taken place with the bus owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2. They have also termed the FIR to be registered on the basis of assumption. They had also alleged that the accident had taken place due to the fault of rider of motorcycle No.HP33B­1697 and according to them, owner, as well as, insurer of the motorcycle has not been impleaded as party, in the present case. 5 2026:HHC:7671 7. On merits, the factum of accident has been denied and the amount of compensation, as claimed in the petition, is also stated to be exaggerated. 8. Insurance Company has filed the separate reply by taking   the   preliminary   objections   that   the   petition   is   not maintainable against the Insurance Company, as the driver of the  offending  vehicle   was  not having  a  valid  and  effective driving licence at the time of accident. 8.1. According   to   the   Insurance   Company,   as   per Section   134   (C)   of   the   M.V.   Act,   owner   and   driver   of   the offending vehicle have not supplied requisite documents to the Insurance Company. As per the Insurance Company, the accident in question, had taken place due to the contributory negligence of rider of Motorcycle No.HP33B­1697. Rest of the contents have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 9. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 10. Claimant has filed the rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents, by denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the factual position, by virtue of which, the claim petition   has   been   contested   and   controverted   by   the respondents. 6 2026:HHC:7671 11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned MACT, vide order dated 31.12.2014:­ 1. Whether deceased Sandeep Chauhan died in an accident   with   vehicle   bearing   No.HP­65­4420, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties, as alleged ? OPR 1 and 2. 4. Whether   the   vehicle   of   respondent   No.1   is insured with respondent No.3, as alleged ? OPR 1 & 2 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR2. 6. Relief. 12. Thereafter, the parties to the  lis  were directed to adduce evidence. 13. After   the   closure   of   evidence   and   after   hearing learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   the   learned   MACT   has decided the petition, vide award impugned herein, by giving the following relief:­ “As a sequel to my findings on all issues above, the   instant   claim   petition   is   allowed   with   cost which is assessed at Rs.5,000/­. The petitioner is awarded total compensation of Rs.14,60,600/­ 7 2026:HHC:7671 with interest @7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of this petition till payment to be paid by the respondent No.1 and 2. However, the respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle shall indemnify this award. This award is inclusive of amount, if any, awarded under Section 140 of the Act. The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the award amount within 45 days.” 14. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, claimant, as well as, the Insurance Company have preferred the present appeals, before this Court. 15. The Insurance Company, aggrieved form the said award, has filed FAO No. 254 of 2017, mainly, on the ground that in the FIR, particulars of the offending vehicle have not been mentioned and after a period of 8 days, the offending vehicle   was   impounded   and   name   of   the   driver   had   been added in the FIR. 16. The   Insurance   Company   has   also   assailed   the award, on the ground that the person, who had lodged the FIR was not present on the spot. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly given 50% addition in the income of the deceased, whereas, the claimant could not make out a case for grant of 50% addition in the income of the deceased in the present case. 17. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Shri   Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, has prayed that the appeal (FAO No.254 of 8 2026:HHC:7671 2017),   may   kindly   be   allowed,   by   dismissing   the   claim petition. 18. In   this   case,   claimant   Jeewana   has   also   filed appeal on the ground that the adequate compensation has not been awarded and wrong multiplier has been applied. 19. In addition to this, enhancement has also been sought on the ground that the learned MACT has failed to take into consideration the actual income of the deceased. As per the claimant/appellant, more amount has been deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive. In addition to this, learned MACT has wrongly deducted the income tax @ 20%, which is stated to be against the legal provisions. 20. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate has prayed that the appeal (FAO No.444 of 2017), may kindly be allowed, and amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced accordingly. 21. The Insurance Company has assailed the award mainly on the ground that the claimant could not prove the involvement   of   the   offending   vehicle,   in   the   accident   in question, what to talk about the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. 9 2026:HHC:7671 22. Perusal of the record shows that the copy of FIR No.254 of 2011, has been proved by PW­2 HC Ashwani No.62, as Ex.PW­2/A.  Perusal of the same shows that the said FIR has   been   registered   at   the   instance   of   one   Rajinder   Pal Dhiman, who admittedly has stated in the FIR that some unknown vehicle has hit the motorcycle bearing HP33B­1697. 23. However, the factum of accident stood proved from the   testimony   of   PW­3   Balak   Ram,   who   has   categorically deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Admittedly, the FIR in question was not lodged by making a statement on oath, as such, non­mentioning of the description/registration number of the offending vehicle is not fatal, as, the proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary in nature,     where,   the   matter   has   to   be   decided,   on   the touchstone of preponderance of probability. 24. The   statement   on   oath   made   by   PW­3,   in   the absence   of   any   ulterior   motive,   which   even   has   not   been suggested   to   him,   cannot   be   ignored   and   considering   the evidence of PW­3, coupled with the copy of FIR, as well as, copy of postmortem report Ex.PW­1/A, this Court is of the view that the claimant has proved the factum of accident, which had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of 10 2026:HHC:7671 offending   vehicle   on   the   touchstone   of   preponderance   of probability. 25. Specific   allegations   have   been   levelled   against respondent No.2, Hans Raj, about the fact that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Except denying the factum of accident in the reply, respondent No.2, has not bothered to step into the witness­box to depose, on oath, about the fact that he was not driving the offending vehicle   at   the   relevant   time. His   non   appearance   in   the witness­box,   gives   an   occasion   for   this   Court   to   draw   an adverse inference that the stand taken by respondent No.2, in his reply is not correct. Moreover, the offending vehicle was in the exclusive control of respondent No.2 and he has not bothered   even   to   make   a   complaint   to   police/higher authorities   about   his   wrong   involvement   in   the   FIR No.254/2011,   dated   18.10.2011,   under   Sections   279,   201 and 304­A of the IPC and Section 187 of MV Act. 26. Hence,   the   contention   of   the   learned   counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 27. Since   the   claimant   has   also   filed   the   appeal against   the   award   passed   by   the   learned   MACT   and 11 2026:HHC:7671 Insurance Company has also assailed the award apart from the other grounds that the learned MACT has wrongly awarded 50% addition on account of future prospects, as such, this Court would now proceed further to decide the moot question whether   the   compensation   awarded   to   the   claimant   falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’, or not. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in  Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987, has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court should be to provide “just compensation” to the claimant. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under:­ “23. Both,   the   1923   Act   and   1988   Act   are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for payment   of   compensation   to   the   workmen employed   by   the   employers   and/or   by   use   of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer   to   the   petitioners   suffering   permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be determined   in   terms   of   the   provisions   of   the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act,  the  Commissioner   who  is  a  quasi  judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determining the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. 12 2026:HHC:7671 24. Both   the   Acts   aim   at   providing   for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these   cases,   the   accidents   took   place   by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available only to the persons specified under   the   Act   besides   under   the   Contract   of Insurance. The   statutes,   therefore,   deserve liberal   construction. The   legislative   intent contained   therein   is   required   to   be   interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (self emphasis supplied) 29. In order to ascertain the above object of the M.V. Act, i.e., ‘just compensation’, the first and foremost question is about the fact as to whether the learned MACT has rightly determined the compensation on account of death of son of the claimant. 30. As per the claim petition, son of the claimant, at the time of accident and death, was about 25 years. In order to   prove   this   fact,   matriculation   certificate   of   Sandeep Chauhan, has also been annexed with the claim petition as Ex.PW­6/B.   As per the said certificate, the date of birth of Sandeep   Chauhan,   was   06.05.1983   and   the   accident   had taken place on 18.10.2011. 31. Thus, at the time of accident the age of the son of the   claimant   was   28   years,   whereas,   learned   MACT   has determined the age of the son of the claimant as 25 years. To 13 2026:HHC:7671 that extent learned MACT has fallen into error. Thus, the age of son of the claimant at the time of death was proved to be 28 years. 32. Now,   the   next   question,   which   arises   for determination before this Court is about the earnings of the son of the claimant during his life time. 33. As   per   the   claim   petition,   he   was   working   as Assistant   Engineer   with   Director,   Rural   Development   and Panchayati Raj, Dharampur Block, District Mandi, H.P.  His salary certificate has been proved as Ex.PW­5/A and as per this certificate, he was working on contract basis and his salary was Rs.18,000/­ per month. 34. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 50% amount is required to be added in the income of the deceased towards his future prospects,   had   he   been   alive,   in   order   to   award   just compensation, as the son of the claimant, during his life time was   working   in   public   sector. Thus,   by   adding   50%,   on account of future prospects, in his salary, his monthly income comes to Rs.27,000/­ (Rs.18,000/­ + Rs.9,000/­). As such, the annual income comes to Rs.3,24,000/­ (Rs.27,000/­ X 14 2026:HHC:7671 12). The income tax component is liable to be deducted from the said income. Out of Rs.3,24,000/­, the amount of total taxable income comes to Rs.1,44,000/­ (Rs.3,24,000/­ minus Rs.1,80,000/­). 35. The son of the claimant died in the year 2011 and at the relevant time, this income falls within the tax slab of 10%. Meaning thereby, Rs.14,400/­ is liable to be deducted as   income   tax,   from   the   annual   income   of   the   deceased. Thus, after deduction of the tax, the annual income of the son of the claimant comes to Rs.3,09,600/­ (Rs.3,24,000/­ minus Rs.14,400/­). 36. Learned MACT has wrongly applied the multiplier, at the age of the claimants, which is not sustainable, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, as, the multiplier should be applied on the basis of age of the deceased, as held in para 59.7 of the said judgment. 37. The age of son of the claimant was held to be 28 years and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla  Verma  versus  Delhi   Transport   Corporation   and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, multiplier of 17, is applicable, in the present case. 15 2026:HHC:7671 38. Son of the claimant was bachelor, at the time of death, as such, 50% amount, out of his annual income, is liable   to   be   deducted,   towards   personal   expenses,   had   he been alive. Thus, his contribution towards the family comes to   Rs.1,54,800/­. As   such,   the   amount   of   compensation awarded to the claimants on account of loss of dependency, comes to Rs.1,54,800/­ x 17 = Rs.26,31,600/­. 39. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, the claimant is also entitled for the consortium. 40. In addition, the claimant is also held entitled for the following amount:­ Loss of estate = `15,000/­ Funeral expenses = `15,000/­ Loss of consortium      =      `40,000/­ 41. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra, the aforesaid amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years. 42. Thus, the amount, for which the claimant, is held entitled, is assessed, as under:­ 1. Loss of contribution =`1,54,800/­x17=`26,31,600/­ 2.Loss of estate = `19,500/­ (`15,000/­ + `4500/­) 16 2026:HHC:7671 3.Funeral expenses= `19,500/­ (`15,000/­ + `4500/­) 4.Loss of consortium=   `52,000/­ ( `40,000/­+`12,000/­) Total= Rs.26,31,600+19,500+19,500+ Rs.52,000=Rs.27,22,600/­ 43. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is liable to be enhanced. 44. Accordingly, FAO No.444 of 2017 is allowed and the   awarded   amount   is   enhanced,   in   the   above   terms. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled for the amount of Rs.27,22,600/­, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing   of   petition   till   the   realization   of   amount,   from respondents No.1 and 2. However, respondent No.3, being insurer of the offending vehicle shall indemnify this award and deposit the same within eight weeks from today. The award   is   inclusive   of   the   amount,   if   any,   awarded   under Section 140 of the Act. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified in the above terms. However, FAO No.254 of 2017, is dismissed. 45. Memo of costs be prepared. 46. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) March 18, 2026 (ps) Judge