1 2026:HHC:12747 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. : 550 of 2017 Reserved on  :   7 th   April, 2026 Decided on    : 22 nd    April, 2026 Kamlesh Sharma & Another .......Appellants Versus HRTC and Another ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellants     : Mr.   Prem   Chand   Verma,   Ms. Ridhi   Mahant,   Mr.   Aakash Thakur   &   Mr.   Varun   Thakur, Advocates For the respondents  : Mr.   Virender   Singh   Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.   Manohar   Lal   Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2. Virender Singh, Judge Appellants have filed  the  present  appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as   ‘the   M.V.   Act’),   against   the   award   dated   05.04.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­III, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in M.A.C.   Petition   No.6ADJ­II/2   of   2016/2014,   titled   as Kamlesh Sharma & Another versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Another. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:12747 2 2. By way of award dated 05.04.2016, the learned MACT has allowed the petition, filed by the appellants by awarding compensation of Rs.22,60,600/­, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount. 3. 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. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, as emerge from the record, may be summed up, as under:­ 4.1. Claimants being parents of Yogesh Mahant, has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking   compensation   on   account   of   death   of   their   son Yogesh   Mahant,   in   road   side   accident   involving   vehicle No.HP03B­6142,   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   the   ‘offending vehicle’),   being   owned   by   respondent   No.1   and   driven   by respondent No.2. 4.2. According   to   the   claimants,   the   accident,   in question, had taken place on 21.03.2014, at about 6.30 p.m., at Mansar, near Salogra. According to the claimants, their son Yogesh Mahant was pillion rider on the motorcycle being 2026:HHC:12747 3 driven by one Ankush Verma. When, they reached at Mansar near Salogra, respondent No.2, while driving the offending vehicle, reached there and hit the motorcycle. Due to this, Ankush Verma received injuries and the son of claimants died on the spot. His dead body was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan for postmortem examination. 4.3. The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Sadar Solan, where FIR No.70 of 2014, dated 21.03.2014, has been registered. 4.4. As per the claimants, the age of their son was 24 years, at the time of his death, and he was pursuing BPT from Manav Bharti University, Kumarhatti. The claimants have pleaded the income of their son as Rs.15,000/­, per month from his part time work. Since, the accident, in question, had solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent   No.2,   as   such,   the   claimants   have   sought compensation of Rs.50,00,000/­, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested   by   respondent   No.2,   by   filing   reply,   whereas, respondent No.1, despite number of opportunities granted, has not filed the reply, as such, the right of respondent No.1, 2026:HHC:12747 4 to file reply has been closed by the learned MACT vide order dated 19.02.2015. 6. Respondent   No.2   has   filed   reply,   in   which,   the factum   of   accident   has   not   been   disputed,   however,   the factum of registration of FIR has been disputed by pleading that the said FIR has been registered on the basis of the distorted facts, as he was neither rash nor negligent and the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle. 7. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the claim petition. 8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, by the learned MACT, vide order dated 17.03.2015:­ 1. Whether   the   death   of   Yogesh,   son   of   the petitioners,   on   account   of   rashness   and negligence   on   the   part   of   respondent   No.2,   in colliding his speeding bus, bearing registration No.HP03B­6142   against   motorcycle   driven   by one Ankush with whom deceased was sitting as pillion rider, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether the   petitioners   are   entitled   to   recover compensation   amount   of   Rs.50,00,000/­   along with   interest   from   the   respondents,   jointly and/or severally, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the accident in question had occurred due to rashness and negligency on the part of 2026:HHC:12747 5 Ankush  in  driving   the   motorcycle,  as   alleged? OPR. 4. Relief. 9. Thereafter, the parties to the  lis  were directed to adduce evidence. 10. After   the   closure   of   evidence   and   after   hearing learned   counsel   for   the   parties,   the   learned   MACT   has decided the petition, as referred to above. 11. Feeling   dissatisfied   from   the   amount   of compensation awarded by the learned MACT, the claimants have preferred the present appeal, before this Court. It is also pertinent   to   mention   here   that   the   respondents   have   not assailed the award, passed by the learned MACT. 12. The claimants are dissatisfied from the amount of compensation   awarded   to   them   and   sought   enhancement, mainly, on the ground that on account of future prospects of their son, the learned MACT has awarded only Rs.2700/­, which is against the settled proposition of law. 13. According   to   the   claimants,   the   income   of   the deceased has wrongly been taken by the learned MACT as Rs.18,000/­   per   month,   whereas,   according   to   them,   his income has been proved to be Rs.35,000/­ per month. In this regard, they have relied upon the deposition of PW­3 Ankush. 2026:HHC:12747 6 The rate of interest has also been sought to be enhanced from 9% to 12% per annum. 14. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Prem Chand Verma, Ms. Ridhi Mahant, Mr. Aakash Thakur & Mr. Varun Thakur, Advocates, appearing for the appellants have prayed that the awarded amount may kindly be enhanced, on the averments so made. 15. Per contra, Mr. Virender Singh Kanwar and Mr. Manohar   Lal   Sharma,   Advocates,   appearing   for   the respondents have supported the award, passed by the learned MACT, and submitted that ‘just compensation’ has already been awarded to the claimants. 16. It is no longer  res integra  that  the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal should be to provide ‘just compensation’ to the claimants, The proceedings, under the M.V. Act, are summary in nature, where, the liability of tort feasor is to be fixed, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. 17. Being   guided   by   the   settled   proposition   of   law, now, this Court would now straightway proceed to determine, whether   the   amount   of   compensation,   which   has   been awarded to the claimants, falls within the definition of ‘just 2026:HHC:12747 7 compensation’ or the same is liable to be enhanced, as the the factum of accident, according to the learned counsel for the claimants, has not been assailed by the respondents, as such, those findings have attained the finality. 19. The age of the deceased, at the time of accident, as per the pleadings was 24 years. The mother of the deceased has tendered in evidence Ex.PW­2/B, which is certificate of Secondary Education Examination, according to which, the date of birth of the deceased is 30.11.1989. The accident, in question, had taken  place, on 21.03.2014. As such, the age of the deceased has rightly been held to be proved as 24 years. 20. In the pleadings, the claimants have pleaded that their son was working on part time basis and was earning Rs.15,000/­ per month, whereas, learned MACT has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/­ per month. This has   been   done   by   learned   MACT,   on   the   basis   of   the deposition of PW­2. 21. Learned   counsel   for   the   claimants,   before   this Court   have   relied   upon   the   statement   of   PW­5,   Dr. Anil Bansal,   Orthopedic   Surgeon,   who,   although,   has   deposed that Ankush and Yogesh Mahant (deceased) were students of 2026:HHC:12747 8 final   semester   of   Physiotherapy   and   according   to   him, Government experienced physiotherapist  may  get  salary  of Rs.35,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­ per month. The said statement can be said to be speculative and general in nature. 22. On the basis of the above facts, it cannot be said that   the   deceased   might   have   earned   Rs.35,000/­   to Rs.40,000/­ per month, had he been alive. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the learned MACT has rightly taken the income of the deceased as Rs.18,000/­ per month. 23. Learned MACT has given the addition of 15% in the   income   of   the   deceased,   on   account   of   his   future prospects, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 24. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, has held in para 59.4, that addition of 40%   of   the   established   income   should   be   made,   if   the deceased is below 40 years and was not having permanent job. 25. The age of the deceased, at the time of his death is proved   as   24   years. In   such   situation,   the   amount   of Rs.7200/­ (Rs.18000/­ x 40%), is required to be added in the income of the deceased. Thus, by adding 40%, on account of 2026:HHC:12747 9 future prospects, in his earnings, his monthly income comes to   Rs.25,200/­   (Rs.18,000/­   +   Rs.7200/­). As   such,   the annual income comes to Rs.3,02,400/­ (Rs.25,200/­ X 12). The income tax component is liable to be deducted from the said   income. Out   of   Rs.3,02,400/­,   the   amount   of   total taxable income comes to Rs.52,400/­ (Rs.3,02,400/­ minus Rs.2,50,000/­). 26. Deceased Yogesh Mahant, died in the year 2014 and at the relevant time, this income falls within the tax slab of 10%. Meaning thereby, Rs.5240/­ 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 deceased   comes   to   Rs.2,97,160/­   (Rs.3,02,400/­   minus Rs.5240/­). 27. The age of the deceased was held to be 24 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 18, is applicable, in the present case. 28. The deceased was bachelor, at the time of death, as such, 50%  amount, out of his annual income, is liable to be deducted, towards his personal expenses, had he been 2026:HHC:12747 10 alive. Thus, his contribution towards the family comes to Rs.1,48,580/­,   per   annum. As   such,   the   amount   of compensation awarded to the claimants on account of loss of dependency, comes to Rs.1,48,580/­ x 18 = Rs.26,74,440/­. 29. In this case, learned MACT, has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/­, towards the funeral expenses, which is liable to be reduced, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra. Relevant paragraph 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.” 30. 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, both the claimants are also entitled to the compensation, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 31. 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% after every three years. 32. Thus, the amount, for which the claimants are held entitled to, is assessed, as under:­ 2026:HHC:12747 11 1.  Loss of contribution = Rs.26,74,440/­(`1,48,580/­x18) 2.Loss of estate = `19,500/­ (`15,000/­ + `4500/­) 3.Funeral expenses= `19,500/­ (`15,000/­ + `4500/­) 4.Loss of consortium=`1,04,000/­(`40,000x2+ `24,000/­) Total= Rs.26,74,440+19,500+19,500+ Rs.1,04,000=Rs.28,17,440/­ 33. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the learned MACT is liable to be enhanced. 34. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed and the awarded amount is enhanced, accordingly.  The claimants are held entitled for the amount of Rs.28,17,440/­, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of petition till the realization of amount, from the respondents.   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. 35. Memo of costs be prepared. 36. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) April __, 2026 (ps) Judge