1 2026:HHC:14158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MVA) No. 4132 of 2013 Decided on : 25.04.2026 Hem Raj ...Appellant Versus MD Punjab Bus Service and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. Rahul   Anand   Kapoor, Advocate,   vice   Mr. Arun Kaushal, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Ambika Kotwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. None for respondents No. 2 and 4. Mr. R.K.   Gautam,   Senior Advocate,   with   Mr. Jai   Ram Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Virender Singh, Judge (Oral) Appellant­Hem Raj is not satisfied with the award dated   07.09.2012,   passed   by   the   Court   of   learned   Motor Accident   Claims   Tribunal   (Fast   Track   Court)   Solan,   H.P. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:14158 (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   learned   MACT’),   in   MACT petition No. 12FTC/2 of 2008, titled as ‘Hem Raj Versus M.D. Punjab State Bus Stand Management Co. Ltd. & others’. 2. Vide award, dated 07.09.2012, while deciding the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), filed by the appellant, the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs. 17,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of petition till deposit of the awarded amount. The liability to pay the compensation, has been fastened upon respondents No. 1 and 2 of half of the awarded amount   and   remaining   amount   is   directed   to   be   paid   by respondents No. 4 and 5, jointly and severally, to be deposited by them, within month, from the date of award. 3. 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. 4. The petitioner is not satisfied with the awarded amount,   as   such,   he   has   preferred   the   present   appeal, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. The 3 2026:HHC:14158 amount   of   compensation   has   mainly   been   sought   to   be enhanced on the ground that it has been proved on record that   the   petitioner   had   suffered   multiple   injuries   in   the accident and remained admit in the hospital for head and chest injuries. In addition to this, according to the learned counsel for the appellant­petitioner, the compensation, under the   various   heads,   has   not   been   awarded   by   the   learned MACT,   as  such,   a  prayer   has   been  made  to  enhance   the amount of compensation. 5. Perusal   of   the   record   shows   that   the   learned MACT has not awarded the amount of compensation under various heads, which is required to be assessed, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Consequently, the   entitlement   of   the   petitioner   is   being   assessed   under various heads, as under:­ 1. NON PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) PAIN AND SUFFERINGS: 6. As per the record, after the accident, petitioner was firstly taken to Civil Hospital Kandaghat, from where, he was referred to R.H. Solan, where, he remained admit for 4 2026:HHC:14158 three   days   i.e.   he   was   admitted   on   13.09.2007   and   was discharged on 15.09.2007. 7. The   said   period   of   hospitalization   must   be traumatic and painful for the petitioner, for which, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/­. (b) LOSS OF ENJOYMENT OF LIFE: 8. Considering the period of hospitalization of three days, coupled with the fact that the petitioner might have taken one month for convalescence, this Court is of the view that, during this period, the petitioner could not enjoy the life of a normal human being. As such, petitioner is held entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/­, under this head. (c) SHORTEN EXPECTANCY OF LIFE: 9. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that on account of the injuries sustained/suffered by the petitioner, his life span has been shortened. As such, no amount of compensation is being awarded, under this head. 2. PECUNIARY DAMAGES: (a) LOSS OF EARNING: 5 2026:HHC:14158 10. Considering the period of hospitalization for three days and the period of one month, which the petitioner might have   taken   for   convalescence,   as   well   as,   considering   the stand of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 3,000/­ per month, this Court is of the view that petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs. 6,000/­, under the head ‘loss of earning’. (b) LOSS OF EARNING CAPACITY 11. There is no permanent disability to the petitioner, due to the accident, as such, no amount is being awarded to the petitioner, under the head ‘loss of earning capacity’. (c) MEDICAL EXPENSES: 12. Although, the petitioner has pleaded that he has spent   Rs. 3,00,000/­,   on   his   treatment,   however,   in   the absence of any documentary evidence, the bald statement of the petitioner cannot be accepted as gospel truth and the amount claimed by  the petitioner  under medical  expenses cannot be awarded. 13. Considering the period of hospitalization, it can be held that he might have spent Rs. 10,000/­, on his medical 6 2026:HHC:14158 treatment. Consequently,   said   amount   is   awarded   to   the petitioner, under the head ‘medical expenses’. (d) SPECIAL DIET AND ATTENDANT CHARGES: 14. Considering the fact that the petitioner remained hospitalize for three days and might have taken one month for convalescence, during that period, he might have taken assistance of a person in order to do the daily pursuits and might have taken the special diet, the petitioner is entitled for a   sum   of   Rs. 6,000/­,   under   the   head   ‘special   diet   and attendant charges’. 15. Considering all these facts, the petitioner is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,000/­ +  Rs. 5,000/­ + Rs. 6,000/­ + Rs. 10,000/­ + Rs. 6,000/­ = Rs. 30,000/­. 16. With these observations, the appeal is allowed by modifying the award passed by the learned MACT and the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs. 17,000/­ to Rs. 30,000/­, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the realization of the whole amount, with upto date interest. 50% amount be paid by   respondents   No.   1   and   2,   jointly   and   severally,   but 7 2026:HHC:14158 applying the principle that master is liable for the act of his servant, done during the course of employment, respondent No. 1 is ultimately held liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount, and the remaining 50% by respondents No. 4 and 5, jointly and severally, but respondent No. 5, being insurer of vehicle No. HP12A­6343, is ultimately held liable to pay the same. 17. However,   keeping   in   view   the   facts   and circumstances, there shall be no order so as to costs. 18. Memo of costs be prepared. 19. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 25th April, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)