Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 4048 of 2013 Date of decision: 02.03.2026 ________________________________________________ Rajnder Singh Chauhan. …..Appellant. Versus Dewan Parivahan & others …..Respondents. ________________________________ ________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 & 2: Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Advocate. For respondent No. 3: Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge.(oral) The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, who was petitioner/claimant before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner/claimant”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 27.11.2012, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 2 petition filed by the petitioner-claimant, under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and he was held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,96,320/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till final realization of the amount and respondents No. 1 and 2 were directed to pay the above amount jointly and severally and in turn they were to be indemnified by respondent No. 3/Insurance Company. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner- claimant, i.e., Shri Rajinder Singh, on 02.09.2008, at Rait boarded bus No. HP-40-3128 to return to his home at Village Charri. When the aforesaid bus reached Safeda curve, near Chambi, due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2-Baldev Singh (driver of the bus), it rolled down in a ditch and the petitioner sustained fractures and multiple grievous injuries. It was averred that respondent No. 1-M/s Dewan Parivahan, owner of the bus, was also negligent in maintaining the offending vehicle and allowed the defective vehicle to be plied on the road. As per the petitioner, he remained admitted in Dr.RPGMC, Tanda, and thereafter at PGI, Chandigarh, w.e.f. 03.09.2008 to 17.10.2008 and was on ventilator continuously for 23 days. He also remained Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 3 admitted in a private hospital at Pathankot from 07.01.2009 to 16.01.2009 and an iron plat was inserted in his right leg and he was also treated for spinal injury. He further averred that he spend approximately three lac rupees on his treatment and he became 100% disable due to the injuries sustained in the aforesaid motor accident. He was technical assistant in Rait Block and 5-6 panchayats were under him, besides other developmental work in the block. He was 40 years old at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month, but after the accident he could not attend his duties. The petitioner sought compensation to the tune of Rs.22,00,000/-. 3. Respondents No. 1 & 2, i.e., owner-M/s Dewan Parivahan and Shri Baldev Singh (driver of the offending vehicle) in their reply raised preliminary objections qua maintainability of the petition and locus-standi to file the same. It was further averred that the petitioner did not approach the learned Tribunal with clean hands and the petition was the result of malafide intention just to harass the respondents. It has also been averred that accident occurred due to technical and mechanical defect and not due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. Lastly, Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 4 prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made. 4. Respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company, in its reply, averred that the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle with carrying capacity of 42 passengers, but it came in the police investigation that 59 passengers were travelling in the offending vehicle and it attributed to overloading, which ultimately was against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. As per the replying respondent, due to the breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it was not liable to pay any compensation. It was further pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle did not hold valid and effective licence at the time of the accident. Respondent No. 3 also sought dismissal of the claim petition. 5. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the replies filed by the respondents, wherein he denied the stand taken by the respondents and reiterated his claim. 6. On13.12.2011 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether injured Rajinder Singh suffered injuries due to rash & negligent driven of vehicle (bus) bearing registration No. HP-40- 3128, as alleged? OPP Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 5 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation, petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether petition is not legally and factually maintainable, as alleged? OPR 1 & 2 4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR- 1 & 2 5. Whether present petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR 1 & 2 6. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try present petition, as alleged? OPR 1 & 2 7. Whether petitioner is stopped from filing present petition by her act and conduct, as alleged? OPR 1 & 2 8. Whether the petitioner has suppressed the material facts from this Tribunal, as alleged? OPR 1 & 2 9. Whether the vehicle was driven in contravention to the terms & conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 10. Whether accident took place due to overloading, as alleged? OPR-3 11. Whether driver of offending vehicle did not hold valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 12. Whether petitioner has no cause of action to file present petition, as alleged? OPR 13. Relief.” 7. After deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the petitioner/claimant, issues No. 3 to 12 against the respondents, the claim petition was allowed and petitioner (claimant) was held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,96,320/- to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 2 jointly Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 6 and severally alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization and respondents No. 1 and 2, in turn, were to be indemnified by respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, being the insurer of the offending vehicle. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant- claimant preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 27.11.2012, with prayer to allow the instant appeal and enhance the compensation amount. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below had committed illegality by awarding meager amount on account of pain and sufferings and the award has been passed in a slip-shod manner. He prayed that the instant appeal be allowed and the compensation amount be enhanced. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents supported the impugned award. They contended that the impugned award is the result of proper appreciation of both law and facts, thus the same does not need any interference and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 7 appellant, learned counsel for the respective respondents and carefully examined the entire records. 12. It is not in dispute that on 02.09.2008, claimant- Shri Rajinder Singh boarded bus No. HP-40-3128 to return to his home at village Charri and when the bus reached Safeda curve, near Chambi, it met with an accident and rolled down in a ditch. Resultantly, the claimant suffered fractures and multiple grievous injuries. 13. On appraisal of the evidence led before the learned Tribunal, it reached the finding that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending bus. The rash and negligent act of driving on the part of the driver of the offending bus has not been assailed by any of the parties. The learned Tribunal below had awarded a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- under the lead loss of income to the claimant, for the period he could not perform calls of his avocation on account of disability entailed upon him. He was also held entitled to Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, Rs.12,600/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges and in addition he was also held entitled to Rs.1,18,720/- on account of his medical treatment and in Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 8 total the claimant was held entitled to Rs.2,96,320/-, as compensation. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below has awarded very meager amount of compensation to the petitioner on account of pain and sufferings. Now the question which arises for consideration is as to what amount of compensation under the head pain and sufferings, the claimant is entitled for. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of 75% on account of fracture of his right tibia with fracture of left acetabulum and in this respect a disability certificate, Ex. PW-7/A, has also been issued in his favour. It has also come on record that due to the disability suffered by the claimant, he would find difficulty in his mobility as well as in his capacity to perform manual work and his disability has impaired his working capacity to a considerable extent. 15. The perusal of the record also reveals that the petitioner remained admitted in Dr.RPGMC, Tanda, and then at PGI, Chandigarh, w.e.f. 03.09.2008 to 17.10.2008 and he remained on ventilator for 23 days. He also remained hospitalized in a private hospital from 07.01.2009 to 16.01.2009. Therefore, the sum of Rs.20,000/- awarded by Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:5313 ) 9 the learned Tribunal below on account of pain and sufferings is on a lower side. Since, the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 75% and he has to remain hospitalized for a considerable period, it would be in the interest of justice if a sum of Rs.60,000/- is awarded to him on account of pain and sufferings. 16. Hence, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the instant appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified only to the extent that the petitioner/claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- over and above Rs.20,000/- already awarded by the learned Tribunal below on account of pain and sufferings. The remaining terms of the impugned award, shall remain the same. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 2nd March, 2026 (virender)