1 2026:HHC:14211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. : 136 of 2014 Reserved on  : 18 th   April, 2026 Decided on    : 30 th    April, 2026 National Insurance Company Ltd.                  .......Appellant Versus Ravikant Thakur & Others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant      : Mr.   Deepak   Bhasin,   Senior Advocate   with   Mr.   Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate. For the respondents  : Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr.   M.L.   Sharma,   Advocate   for respondent No.2. Mr.   Adarsh   Vashisht,   Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr.   P.S.   Chandel,   Advocate   for respondent No.4. Virender Singh, Judge Appellant   National   Insurance   Company   Limited, through   its   Divisional   Manager,   has   preferred   the   present appeal,   under   Section   173   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 18.12.2013, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:14211 2 Tribunal,   Bilaspur,   District   Bilaspur,   H.P.   (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in M.A.C. No.46 of 2010, titled as ‘Ravikant Thakur versus M/s Swiss Edibles & Others’. 2. By way of award dated 18.12.2013, the learned MACT   has   allowed   the   claim   petition,   filed   by   respondent No.1,   for   compensation,   by   awarding   a   sum   of Rs.14,33,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the amount is deposited with the learned MACT. The ultimate liability to pay the compensation amount has been fastened upon  the appellant. 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. Petitioner   Ravikant   Thakur,   has   filed   the   claim petition,   under   Section   166   of   the   M.V.   Act,   against   the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. HP14A­3497 and insurer of vehicle No.HP23B­3949. 2026:HHC:14211 3 4.2. According to the petitioner, the accident had taken place on 11.09.2009, at about 6.00 p.m., near Gorakh Nath Temple Marawara in Panchkula District, Haryana, involving vehicle   No.HP14A­3497   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the offending vehicle’) which was allegedly driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and negligent manner. 4.3. The   petitioner   was,   on   motorcycle   No.HP23B­ 3949, along with his friend Arvind Dhiman, on his way to Baddi from Chandigarh. The accident, in question, had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, in which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Pillion rider also sustained injuries. 4.4. Thereafter, the petitioner was taken to Malhotra Super Specialty Hospital, Baddi, where, he remained admit as indoor   patient   w.e.f.   11.09.2009   to   24.09.2009   and thereafter,  from   3.10.2009  to  05.11.2009. Thereafter,   the petitioner   visited   IGMC   Shimla,   PGI   Chandigarh   and   still under   treatment   with   Dayanand   Medical   College   and Hospital, Ludhiana (Punjab). 4.5. At the time of accident, the petitioner was about 23   years   of   age   and   was   student   of   B.   Tech. (Computer Science), in IEET Baddi, District  Solan. According to  the 2026:HHC:14211 4 petitioner, the accident had adverse impact upon his career, as,  he  could  not appear   in  7th  Semester  examination  and become permanent disabled. 4.6. The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Pinjour, Panchkula (Haryana), where, FIR No.154   of   2009,   dated   12.09.2009,   has   been   registered, under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 of the IPC. 5. Since, the accident, in question, has solely been attributed to respondent No.2, as such, the petitioner has sought the amount of compensation against the respondents. 6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, except respondent No.2, who has not opted to put appearance and was proceeded against exparte. 7. Respondent   No.1,   in   its   reply,   has   denied   the factual position, as asserted in the claim petition, mainly for want   of   knowledge,   however,   factum   of   accident   and registration of FIR, has not been disputed. Respondent No.1, has also denied that the accident took place, due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. 8. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle filed its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that 2026:HHC:14211 5 the claim petition is not maintainable; the claim petition does not disclose any cause of action; the offending vehicle was being plied, in violation to the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, as the person, driving the same was not holding valid and effective driving licence; the petitioner has no locus standi as the alleged accident took place due to the negligence of the petitioner himself; and the petitioner was riding the motorcycle without valid documents and driving licence. 9. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied for want of knowledge. It is also the case of the Insurance   Company   of   the   offending   vehicle   that   the petitioner was himself negligent and the alleged accident had taken   place   due   to   the   contributory   negligence   of   the petitioner. 10. Respondent No.4, has also filed separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; petitioner has no locus standi and cause of action to file the claim petition against respondent No.4, as the offending vehicle was not insured with respondent No.4, rather   the   same   was   insured   with   respondent   No.3;   the person, who was riding motorcycle No.HP23B­3949, was not 2026:HHC:14211 6 having the valid and effective driving licence  and also was not having   documents   like;   Insurance   Policy   Registration Certificate; and the same was being driven, in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 11. On merits, the factum of registration of FIR has been admitted and a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 12. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   the   learned MACT   has   framed   the   following   issues,   vide   order   dated 25.08.2011: 1. Whether   the   petitioner   sustained   injuries   in   a motor   vehicle   accident   due   to   the   rash   and negligent driving of Maruti Van No.HP­14A­3497 by   its   driver   Sanjay,   respondent   No.2,   on 11.09.2009,   at   about   6.00   p.m.,   near   Gorakh Nath   Temple   Marwara,   District   Panchkula (Haryana)? OPP 2. If issue No.1 supra is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation  and from whom, the petitioner is entitled? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.2 Sanjay was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, as alleged? OPRs 3 & 4 4. Whether   the   offending   vehicle   is   being   plied without valid documents? OPRs­3 & 4 5. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and   negligent   driving   of   petitioner   himself,   as alleged? OPR­3 6. Relief. 2026:HHC:14211 7 13. Thereafter, the parties to the  lis  were directed to adduce evidence. 14. After   the   closure   of   evidence   and   after   hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned MACT has allowed the claim petition, as referred to above. 15. Feeling aggrieved from the said award passed by the learned MACT, respondent No.3­Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, has assailed the said award before this Court, on the ground, that the learned MACT has wrongly decided issues No.1, 2 and 5 and wrongly fastened liability to pay the amount upon respondent No.3. 16. According to the appellant/respondent No.3, the plea qua the fact that the petitioner himself was rash and negligent and the accident, in question, had taken place due to his contributory negligence and as such, the entire liability cannot   be   fastened   upon   the   Insurance   Company   of   the offending vehicle, has not been taken in to consideration by the learned MACT. 17. The award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly held that the driver of the offending vehicle was alone negligent and the admitted fact has   not   been   considered. When   there   were   two   vehicles 2026:HHC:14211 8 involved   in   the   accident,   the   liability   of   the   compensation ought to have been reduced proportionately. 18. The   award   has   further   been   assailed   on   the ground   that   the   learned   MACT   has   wrongly   taken   the disability as 30% for the whole body, whereas, as per the medical jurisprudence, in such a case, the disability for the whole body is taken as 50% of the disability of the limbs, as assessed by the Medical Board, and as such, the learned MACT has not properly assessed the functional disability. 19. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. Deepak Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed   by   exonerating   appellant­respondent   No.3,   from paying the amount of compensation. It has also been prayed that the awarded amount may kindly be reduced in view of the submissions made above. 20. Per   contra,   Mr. Surya   Chauhan,   Advocate,   has supported the award and argued that the learned MACT has rightly fastened the liability upon appellant­respondent No.3, as, the offending vehicle was insured with it. 2026:HHC:14211 9 21. First of all, coming to the question, whether the liability to pay the amount of compensation has rightly been fastened upon respondent No.3, by learned MACT, or not. 22. As   per   the   pleaded   case   of   the   petitioner,   the offending vehicle was driven by respondent No.2, in a rash and   negligent   manner,   against   whom,   FIR   No.154/09   has been   registered   with   Police   Station,   Pinjour   (Haryana). Specific   allegations   have   been   levelled   against   respondent No.2, by alleging that he was driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. 23. As stated above, despite notice, respondent No.2, has not bothered to put appearance and to contest the claim petition, nor, any efforts have been made by respondent No.3­ appellant to examine the driver, by summoning him, as their witness,   to   prove,   contrary   to   the   stand   taken   by   the petitioner. 24. The   FIR,   in   question,   has   been   proved   by   ASI Joginder   Singh,   Police   Station   Pinjour,   Haryana,   who appeared   in   the   witness­box   as   PW­6. This   witness   has categorically stated that after completion of the investigation, charge­sheet against Sanjay son of Shri Chint Ram, resident 2026:HHC:14211 10 of village Kayarad, Police Station, Dharampur, District Solan, (driver of the offending vehicle) has been filed. 25. Registration   of   FIR,   as   well   as,   submission   of challan are sufficient to hold that the accident, in question, had  taken  place  due  to  the  rash  and  negligent   driving  of respondent   No.2,   as   he   has   neither   bothered   to   put appearance, nor, has contested the allegations, which have been levelled against him. 26. Even   otherwise,   the   petitioner,   in   unequivocal terms, has levelled allegations against the driver of offending vehicle, by deposing that when, they reached near Gorakh Nath Temple Marawara, in Panchkula District (Haryana), at about 6.00 p.m., then, the offending vehicle, being driven by its driver, in a high speed and in the wrong direction, in zig­ zag manner, due to which, he could not control the same and hit the motorcycle. 27. In such situation, only the person, who could have rebutted the said evidence, is respondent No.2. He has not controverted   those   allegations,   nor,   has   appeared   in   the witness box to depose contrary to the stand, as taken by the petitioner. 2026:HHC:14211 11 28. 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. 29. By examining RW­1­Bal Krishan Thakur, Senior Assistant, RLA, Solan, respondent No.3­appellant has proved the driving licence of respondent No.2, which duly authorizes respondent No.2 to drive the offending vehicle, as such, when no  violation  of the terms  and conditions of the  insurance policy   has   been   proved   by   respondent   No.3­appellant,   the learned   MACT,   has   rightly   fastened   the   liability   upon   the Insurance   Company   of   the   offending   vehicle,   i.e.,   the appellant herein. 30. So   far   as   the   quantum   of   compensation   is concerned, it has been argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the amount awarded to the petitioner is exorbitant and the same is liable to be reduced down. 31. It is no longer  res integra  that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court should be to award ‘just compensation’. While determining  the stand of the Insurance Company  vis­à­vis ‘just compensation’, this Court has to consider the evidence, 2026:HHC:14211 12 so adduced, by the claimant, before the learned MACT, to determine   the   fact   whether   the   amount   of   compensation, which has been awarded, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not or the same is liable to be reduced, as prayed by the appellant. 32. Learned MACT has awarded compensation under various   heads,   but,   the   same   has   not   been   done   after discussing the evidence. The award does not spell out as to how,   the   learned   MACT   has   assessed   the   future   loss   of income as Rs.9,72,000/­. Similarly, no reasoning has been given   to   assess   the   amount   of   compensation,   which   the applicant is entitled to, under different heads. 33. The findings, should have been recorded by the learned   MACT,   while   awarding   compensation,   under   the different heads, by recording the reasons for awarding the amount of compensation. In such situation, this Court has to determine the amount of compensation under various heads, which is accordingly assessed, as under:­ 1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: 34. As per the evidence led by the petitioner, after the accident, which had taken place on 11.09.2009, in which, he had   suffered  fracture  of  arm,  femur,  as   well  as,   multiple 2026:HHC:14211 13 fractures in his foot, he was taken to a private hospital at Baddi, namely Malhotra Hospital, where, he remained admit from   11.09.2009   to   24.09.2009   and   thereafter,   from 3.10.2009 to 5.11.2009, as indoor patient. His knee was operated and toe of right foot was amputated. 35. By examining PW­8 Dr. Parveen Sharma, RMO, Malhotra Super Specialty Hospital Baddi, the petitioner has proved on record that he was admitted in the said hospital from   11.09.2009   to   24.09.2009   and   thereafter,   from 3.10.2009   to   5.11.2009. He   was   treated   for   the   injuries caused in road side accident. This has been deposed by the Doctor on the basis of the hospital record, brought by him and   there   is   no   occasion   for   this   Court   to   disbelieve   the version given in the document. 36. Thereafter,   the   petitioner   remained   admit   in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana. PW­7 Dr. Sunny Gupta, resident doctor, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana has deposed that he has brought the record and as per the record, the petitioner remained admit in Dayanand Medical College from 24.01.2010 to 07.02.2010. During that period, he was operated upon, for removing the metal rod from his right thigh region. Thus, the total period of hospitalization comes to 63 days. 2026:HHC:14211 14 37. The period of hospitalization and convalescence, must be painful and traumatic for the petitioner, for which, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2000/­ per day. As such, the   petitioner   is   entitled   to   a   sum   of   Rs.2000x63= Rs.1,26,000/­, under this head. (b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE: 38. As discussed hereinabove, the petitioner remained admit with Malhotra Super Specialty Hospital Baddi, from 11.09.2009 to 24.09.2009 and thereafter, from 3.10.2009 to 5.11.2009. Thereafter,   the   petitioner   remained   admit   at Dayanand   Medical   College   and   Hospital,   Ludhiana,   from 24.01.2010 to 07.02.2010. 39. As per the deposition of PW­2 Dr. M.I. Ahmad, Orthopedics   Surgeon,   Zonal   Hospital,   Bilaspur,   H.P., initially,   the   Board   had   issued   50%   temporary   disability certificate, in favour of the petitioner and thereafter, he was again assessed for the purpose of ascertaining the permanent disability and the Board found 40% permanent disability, vide certificate Ex.PW­2/B.  He has categorically stated that the disability was with regard to lower limb and due to the said disability, the petitioner will face the difficulty in walking and also could not be in standing position for long time. He 2026:HHC:14211 15 cannot join the forces. He has admitted that the disability is with regard to the right leg and no other disability was found by the Board. Keeping in view the nature of the disability, as well as, the period of hospitalization, this Court is of the view that  the  petitioner  might   have   taken   atleast  one  year  for convalescence. 40. The petitioner could not appear in examination of 7th  Semester of B.Tech, which resulted into the loss of his one year. At the time of accident, the petitioner was about 23 years of age and due to this accident, he has suffered disability, which has been assessed by the Medical Board as 40% permanent disability, in relation to his right lower limb. 41. Considering the deposition of the expert that due to the disability, the petitioner will feel difficulty in walking and could not stand for considerable time, this Court is of the view that the said disability has adverse impact on the day­to­day life of the petitioner. The learned MACT has not awarded any amount under this head. 42. The period of hospitalization, is held to be 63 days and   the   petitioner   must   have   taken   one   year   for convalescence and he has to live, rest of his life, with 40% 2026:HHC:14211 16 permanent disability. The said disability will not only affect his earning capacity, but, also his marriage prospects. 43. Moreover, due to this accident, the petitioner has lost   one   precious   year   and   he   could   not   join   the   Armed Forces, as deposed by PW­2, Dr. M.I. Ahmad. As such, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/­, under the head ‘loss of enjoyment of life’. (c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE: 44. There is no evidence on the record to prove or to suggest that due to disability and injury suffered, the life span  of  the   petitioner   has  been  shortened. As   such,   no amount of compensation is being awarded, under this head. 2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) LOSS OF EARNINGS AND EARNING CAPACITY: 45. The age of the petitioner, at the time of accident, was 23 years and was a student. Due to the accident, he could not pursue his studies for one year. The loss of future prospects,   including   the   marriage   prospects,   have   already been taken into consideration, by this Court, while deciding the quantum, under the head ‘loss of enjoyment of life’, as such, the same are not required to be considered here. At the time of accident, the petitioner was student and was not 2026:HHC:14211 17 earning anything, as such, nothing is to be awarded to the petitioner on account of ‘loss of income’. 46. So   far   as,   the   loss   of   earning   capacity   of   the petitioner is concerned, due to the accident, the petitioner has suffered 40% permanent disability with regard to right lower limb. Considering the disability, which is held to be 40%, permanent in nature, with respect to right lower limb, coupled with the opinion of the Expert qua the fact that petitioner will  face difficulty in walking and he could not stand   for   long   period,   this   Court   is   of   the   view   that   the disability of the petitioner must have adverse impact upon his earning capacity. 47. As   stated   above,   at   the   relevant   time,   the petitioner was a student and was not earning anything, but, it could not be expected from a student, who has studied B. Tech., that he would not earn anything, after completion of his degree. Although, the petitioner has stated that his class fellows were earning Rs.35,000/­ to Rs.40,000/­ per month, however, the said stand can be said to be speculative and cannot be accepted as gospel truth, but, this does not mean that   the   petitioner   could   not   have   earned   anything,   after 2026:HHC:14211 18 completing his B. Tech. In such situation, this Court has to do some guess work to assess his earning. 48. After completing the B.Tech., the petitioner might have got job, but, on the day, when he has appeared, in the witness­box, he was not doing any job. In such situation, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met,   if   the   income   of   the   petitioner   is   assessed   as Rs.20,000/­ per month, had he not suffered the disability. 49. Considering the disability, which is in relation to right lower limb, the loss of earning capacity this comes to Rs.8,000/­ per month, or, to say, Rs.96,000/­ per annum. 50. At the time of accident, the age of the petitioner was 23 years, as such, the multiplier of 18 is appropriate multiplier, in this case. Thus, the amount of compensation, under the head ‘loss of earning capacity’ comes to Rs.8000/­ X12X18 = Rs.17,28,000/­ (b) MEDICAL EXPENSES: 51. The   learned   MACT   has   awarded   a   sum   of Rs.1,95,000/­ under the head treatment and transportation charges. The said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 2026:HHC:14211 19 (c) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 52. The period of hospitalization has been held to be 63 days and the period of convalescence, has been held to be one year. Meaning thereby, for a period of about 14 months, the petitioner might have taken special diet and might have required assistance of some attendants, for which, it would be just and appropriate to award a sum of Rs.200/­ per day, under this head. Thus, the compensation, under this head, comes to Rs.420x200=Rs.84,000/­. 53. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held entitled   to   a   sum   of   Rs.26,33,000/­   (Rs.1,26,000/­+ Rs.5,00,000/­+Rs.17,28,000/­+ Rs.1,95,000/­+Rs.84,000/­), along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition till its realization from respondent No.3. 54. In view of  the above  discussions, the appeal is dismissed, however, the award passed by the learned MACT is modified and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.14,33,000/­ to Rs.26,33,000/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole amount. 55. However,   keeping   in   view   the   facts   and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 2026:HHC:14211 20 56. Memo of costs be prepared. 57. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) April 30, 2026 (ps) Judge