1 2026:HHC:14203-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MV) No. 108 of 2014 a/w CMP No. 4616 of 2014 Reserved on : 25.04.2026 Decided on : 30.04.2026 Pardeep Kumar ...Appellant Versus Arun Kumar and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant: Mr. Lovneesh   Kanwar,   Senior Advocate,   assisted   by   Mr. Tarun Garla, Advocate. For the respondents: None for respondent No. 1. Ms. Vandana Kumari, Advocate, vice   Mr. Naveen   K.   Bhardwaj, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Virender Singh, Judge Appellant­Pardeep   Kumar   has   filed   the   present appeal,   under   Section   173   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), being dissatisfied with the award dated 30.10.2013, passed by learned Motor 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14203-DB Accident   Claims   Tribunal­II,   Hamirpur,   District   Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned MACT’), in MAC Petition No. 22 of 2010, RBT No. 21 of 2013, titled as ‘Pardeep Kumar Versus Arun Kumar and others’. 2. By   way   of   the   award   dated   30.10.2013,   the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,726/­, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the amount. The litigation expenses have also been quantified at Rs. 5,000/­. Respondents No. 1 and 2 were held liable to pay the amount of compensation by exonerating respondent No. 3 from paying compensation. 3. The   present   appeal   has   been   filed   by   the appellant, for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to him, by learned MACT. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to  the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned MACT. 5. Brief   facts,   leading   to   the   filing   of   the   present appeal, may be summed up, as under:­ 3 2026:HHC:14203-DB 5.1 Petitioner   Pardeep   Kumar,   has   approached   the learned   MACT,   under   Section   166   of   M.V.   Act,   seeking compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/­, along with interest at the rate   of   12%   per   annum,   on   account   of   injuries/disability suffered/sustained in a road side accident, involving vehicle No. HP55B­7502. The petition has been filed against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. HP55B­7502   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   offending vehicle’). 5.2 According   to   the   petitioner,   the   accident   in question had taken place on 03.01.2010. The petitioner was pillion   rider   on   motorcycle   No.   HP22A­4793,   owned   by Jagdish Chand (Jaggu) son of Sh. Rattan Chand. When, they reached near Taran Da­Choa, meanwhile, offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 2, came from Nadaun side and hit the motorcycle No. HP22A­4793, due to which, the petitioner sustained injuries. Cause of accident is pleaded as rash   and   negligent   driving   of   the   offending   vehicle   by respondent No. 2. 4 2026:HHC:14203-DB 5.3 According to the petitioner, after the accident, he was initially taken to the hospital of Dr. Vikas Mandyal at Hamirpur, who is running the hospital under the name and style of Sri Krishna Hospital. Thereafter, he was shifted to Rajinder Parsad Government Medical College and Hospital, Tanda. He was discharged from the hospital on 01.02.2010. The information regarding the accident was given to Police Station Nadaun, where FIR No. 15 of 2010, dated 15.01.2010, under Sections 279, 337 of IPC has been registered against respondent No. 2, driver of the offending vehicle. 5.4 According to the petitioner, due to the injuries, he has become disabled and prior to the accident, he was mason by profession. At the time of accident, his age was 34 years. He has pleaded his income as Rs. 10,000/­ per month. 5.5 On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the claim petition, as prayed for. 6. When   put   to   notice,   claim   petition   has   been contested by the respondents. 7. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed the joint reply, in which, they have denied the factum of accident. According 5 2026:HHC:14203-DB to them, FIR has been wrongly lodged by the petitioner in connivance   with   owner   of   motorcycle   bearing   No.   HP22A­ 4793, however, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of rider of motorcycle No. HP22A­4793. Rest of the contents have been denied. 8. Insurance company of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent   No.   3,   has   filed   its   separate   reply,   taking preliminary   objections   that   the   claim   petition   is   not maintainable, as the offending vehicle was not insured with them; the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effecting driving license, at the time of accident; and the offending vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8.1 On merits, the insurance company has taken the plea that the offending vehicle was never insured with them, as, there was no compliance of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act,   1938,   since,   the   cheque   issued   by   respondent   No.   1 against   policy   No.   0G­09­1208­1812­00000155   was dishonoured   and   returned   back   uncleared. Rest   of   the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied, for 6 2026:HHC:14203-DB want of knowledge. Thus, the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 9. The petitioner filed rejoinder to the reply filed by respondents No. 1 and 2, denying the factual position, by virtue of which, the claim petition has been contested and the contents of the claim petition have been re­asserted. 10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned MACT on 15.10.2011:­ 1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries due to rash and negligent   driving  of   bus   No.  HP55B­7502   by  driver/ respondent No. 2, Vinod Kumar, as alleged? OPP 2. If   issue   No.   1   is   proved   in   affirmative,   whether petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR 1 & 2. 4. Whether   Bus   No.   HP55B­7502   was   insured   with respondent No. 3, as alleged? OPR 1 & 2. 5. Whether driver, Vinod Kumar, was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged? OPR 3 6. Whether   the   vehicle   in   question   was   being   plied   in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR 3 7. Whether the petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPR 3 8 Relief. 11. Thereafter, the parties to the  lis  were directed to adduce evidence. 7 2026:HHC:14203-DB 12. After  hearing  the  learned  counsel  appearing   for the parties, the learned MACT has awarded the amount of Rs. 1,16,726/­,   along   with   interest   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per annum, against respondents No. 1 and 2, by fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have not filed any appeal or cross­objections against the award. 13. Feeling   dissatisfied   with   the   said   award,   the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, on the ground, that   the   learned   MACT   has   misread   the   pleadings   and evidence brought on record. 13.1 According   to   the   petitioner,   the   disability certificate Ext. PW7/B, has wrongly been ignored, whereas, the same  has  been issued by  the competent  Board. The learned MACT is stated to have not considered the fact that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability in his right arm, as such, he is entitled for the future loss of income, which has wrongly been denied to him. 8 2026:HHC:14203-DB 13.2 The impugned award has also been challenged on the ground that the learned MACT has wrongly assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs. 5,000/­ per month, whereas he has specifically proved that his income was Rs. 10,000/­ per month. 14. Along with the appeal, an application (CMP No. 4616/2014) under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. has also been moved to place on record and prove the disability certificate, issued by the competent authority. In terms of the certificate, dated   04.01.2014,   issued   by   the   competent   authority,   the disability   of   the   petitioner   has   been   assessed   to   be   25%, permanent in nature. 15. According   to   the   petitioner,   the   said   certificate could not be produced before the learned MACT, as the Board has examined the petitioner for the purpose of assessing the permanent   disability,   only   on   04.01.2014,   i.e.   after   the decision of the claim petition. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 16. The owner has not opted to contest the appeal, whereas,   Vinod   Kumar,   respondent   No.   2   (driver),   has 9 2026:HHC:14203-DB supported the award passed by learned MACT and prayed that petitioner is not entitled for any enhancement and the application   filed   under   Order   41   Rule   27   CPC,   is   not maintainable,   as   the   application   does   not   fulfill   the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. 17. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to dismiss the appeal, as well as, the application. 18. In this case, neither the owner nor the driver has filed the appeal or cross­objections to challenge the award passed by the learned MACT, by virtue of which, the liability has been fastened upon respondents No. 1 and 2, meaning thereby, to the extent of liability, the findings of the learned MACT have attained finality. 19. As stated above, the learned MACT has awarded the sum of Rs. 1,16,726/­, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till its realization, along with litigation expenses, quantified at Rs. 5,000/­, against respondents No. 1 and 2. 20. The learned MACT has rightly awarded a sum of Rs. 43,726/­, under the head ‘expenses relating to treatment 10 2026:HHC:14203-DB and   hospitalization’. The   said   amount   does   not   require interference by this Court. 21. So far as the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss of income and earning capacity’ is concerned, the learned MACT has assessed the monthly income of petitioner as Rs. 5,000/­ per month under the head ‘loss of earning’. The petitioner has pleaded that he is mason by profession and earning Rs. 10,000/­ per month. The accident had taken place on 03.01.2010 and the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working in unorganized sector. The petitioner, on oath, has deposed that he was earning Rs. 10,000/­ per month. 22. Interestingly,   in   the   cross­examination,   even, suggestion has not been put to the petitioner that he was not earning   Rs. 10,000/­   per   month   by   working   as   a   mason. When, a factual position, which, has been asserted by the witness in the examination­in­chief, is not controverted by the respondents, even, by giving a suggestion to him, the same amounts to admission on the part of the respondents. 23. Even,   in   the   claim   petition,   in   para   No.   6,   the petitioner has pleaded his income as Rs. 10,000/­ per month. 11 2026:HHC:14203-DB The contents of the said para have evasively been denied by respondents   No.   1   and   2,   in   their   reply. Evasive   denial amounts to admission, as, respondents No. 1 and 2 were not under any disability at the relevant time. 24. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the arguments of learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, qua the fact that the income of the petitioner, in the absence of any documentary evidence, is to be taken at the rate of Minimum Wages Act, is not liable to be accepted, as it is not the case of no evidence, as the petitioner, on oath, has deposed   that   he   was   earning   Rs. 10,000/­   per   month   by working as  a mason. Statement  on  oath  falls within the definition of evidence. As such, the learned MACT has fallen into error by assessing the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs. 5,000/­ per month and the same is required to be taken as Rs. 10,000/­ per month. 25. Taking into account the period of hospitalization for   about   one   month   and   considering   the   nature   of   the injuries, the petitioner might have taken atleast five months for convalescence, as such, he could not attribute anything to 12 2026:HHC:14203-DB his family for about six months, for which, he is entitled to Rs. 10,000/­ x 6 = Rs. 60,000/­, under the head “loss of income”. 26. As regards, loss of future earnings, on account of permanent disability is concerned, the learned MACT, in the present case, has not awarded anything under the head ‘Loss of   earning  capacity’. The  same   has  been  declined   to   the petitioner on the ground that the disability certificate Ext. PW7/B, is not qua permanent disability. The petitioner by way   of   the   application   under   Order   41   Rule   27   CPC   has produced   the   disability   certificate. The   said   document   is required to be taken into consideration, as the permanent disability has been assessed by the Board, after the decision of   the   claim   petition   by   the   learned   MACT,   as   such,   the application   under   Order   41   Rule   27   CPC   is   liable   to   be allowed, as the proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary in nature, where, the liability of tort feasor is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities. 27. Moreover,   the   permanent   disability   has   been assessed   on   04.01.2014,   then,   how   the   petitioner   can   be 13 2026:HHC:14203-DB expected to produce the same before the learned MACT, at the time of decision, or prior to it. Consequently, application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is allowed. The document is allowed to be taken on record. Document is exhibited as Ext. P­X. 28. The petitioner has suffered the disability of 25%, permanent in nature. The disability is stated to be locomotor impaired   i.e.   disability   is   a   significant   restriction   in   the movement of  limbs (arms/legs) or a bodily  function, often caused   by   musculoskeletal   or   nervous   system   issues. It affects a person’s ability to walk, stand, or grasp, commonly resulting from Cerebral Palsy, accidents, or illness and often requires assistive devices. 29. Considering   the   said   disability,   viz­a­viz,   the nature of the profession of the petitioner, i.e. mason, this Court is of the view that the said disability can be said to be 50%, functional disability of the petitioner. Although, the same is stated to be 25%, in the certificate Ext. P­X, but, keeping in view the said disability in relation to the petitioner, who is mason by profession, the same can be said to be 50%, 14 2026:HHC:14203-DB as with this disability, the petitioner cannot work as mason. His income has been held to be Rs. 10,000/­ per month and his age at the relevant time was about 34 years. He was working in private sector, as such, 40% amount is required to be added on account of his future prospects. Had he not been suffered with disability, his future income would be Rs. 14,000/­ and considering the functional disability, which has been assessed by this Court  as 50%, his monthly  loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 7,000/­ per month or to say Rs. 84,000/­ per annum (Rs. 7,000/­ x 12). 30. Keeping   in   view   the   age   of   the   petitioner, multiplier of 16 is to be applied, in order to assess the loss of earning capacity. Thus the loss of earning capacity comes to Rs. 13,44,000/­ (Rs. 84,000/­ x 16). 31. Under   the   head   “Miscellaneous   expenses”,   the learned   MACT   has   awarded   a   sum   of   Rs. 10,000/­,   on account   of   transportation   charges,   attendant   charges   etc. Considering the period of hospitalization and convalescence, which is held to be six months, this Court is of the view that the petitioner might have taken the special diet or might have 15 2026:HHC:14203-DB required the assistance of attendant, for doing daily pursuits, for   which,   he   is   entitled   to   Rs. 3600/­,   under   the   head ‘expenses   on   special   diet’   and   for   the   attendant   charges, petitioner is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 24,000/­. Thus, the   petitioner   is   entitled   for   a   sum   of   Rs. 27,600/­   (Rs. 3,600/­ + Rs. 24,000/­). NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: 32. So far as the compensation under the head ‘Pain and sufferings’ is concerned, the period of hospitalization is held to be one month and during that period, he was operated upon. The said period must be traumatic and painful for the petitioner,   for   which,   he   is   held   entitled   to   a   sum   of   Rs. 60,000/­. 33. Under   the   head   ‘Loss   of   enjoyment   of   life’,   the period of hospitalization is held to be one month and he might have   taken   five   months   for   convalescence,   during   which period, he could not enjoy his life like a normal human being, for which, he is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/­. The factum   of   disability   is   not   taken   into   consideration,   while assessing   the   compensation   under   the   head   “loss   of 16 2026:HHC:14203-DB enjoyment’ as the same has already been taken under the head “loss of earning capacity”. 34. Thus, the petitioner is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 43,726/­   +   Rs. 60,000/­   +   Rs. 13,44,000/­   +   Rs. 27,600/­ + Rs. 60,000/­ + Rs. 1,00,000/­ = Rs. 16,35,326/­. 35. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the amount  of compensation is  liable  to  be enhanced from Rs. 1,16,726/­ to Rs. 16,35,326/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of   the   petition,   till   the   realization   of   the   amount. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are liable to pay the amount jointly and severally. 36. However,   keeping   in   view   the   facts   and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 37. Memo of costs be prepared. 38. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 30th April, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)