( 2026:HHC:6652 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 4114 of 2013 Reserved on: 07.03.2026 Date of decision: 11 .03.2026 ________________________________________________ Sunil Kumar …..Appellant Versus HRTC & others ……Respondents ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Ms. Seema K. Guleria, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Reeta Thakur, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, who was the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 28.02.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby MAC Petition No. 17-S/2 of 12/10, filed by the claimant was allowed and he was held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,728/- alongwith interest 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment and expenses of the petition to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-, with a prayer to allow the present appeal by enhancing the impugned award. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.12.2009, the claimant boarded an HRTC bus bearing registration No. HP-07-4910 from Khaneti to Shimla. Around 10:20 A.M., when the said bus reached near Bhekhalti, the driver of the bus lost control over it and struck it against a truck bearing registration No. HP-63-0846. On account of the said accident, right leg’s bone of the claimant got fractured, two teeth got broken and his right eye vision got disturbed. In addition to the aforesaid injuries, the claimant also sustained injuries on his head. According to the claimant, the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The claimant, after the accident, was taken to IGMC, Shimla from where, he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh, where he remained admitted w.e.f. 15.12.2009 to 18.12.2009. Thereafter, he was referred back to IGMC, Shimla, where he was again admitted w.e.f. 19.12.2009 to 2 ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) 29.12.2009. As per the claimant, he had to undergo surgeries and had to incur expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- on his treatment. He had also spent an amount of Rs. 12,000/- for transportation. On the basis of these submissions, the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2, contested the petition by filing joint reply, wherein, they took preliminary objections qua maintainability, cause of action, petition is bad for non- joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties and that the claimant has concealed the material facts. On merits, it has been submitted that the claimant was not travelling in the bus, rather, he was one of the occupants of truck bearing registration No. HP-63-0846, which was being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and struck against the bus and due to this accident committed by the truck driver, the claimant sustained injuries. It has been specifically averred that owner and driver of truck bearing registration No. HP-63-0846 have not been arrayed as parties by the claimant and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 3 ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) 4. Similar is the reply filed by respondent No. 3, Nazir Hussain, driver of HRTC bus, who, in addition to the aforesaid averments, stated in his reply that driver and owner of the truck took undue advantage of his being unconscious after the accident and had connived with the police and got a false case registered against him. 5. By filing rejoinders, the contents of the replies are denied and contents of the claim petition are reiterated. 6. On 16.02.2011, the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered bodily injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 on 14.12.2009. as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? OPR 4. Whether the petitioner has no cause of action, as alleged? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPR 6. Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck No. HP-63-0846, as alleged, if so, to what effect? OPR 4 ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) 7. Relief.” 7. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the petition was allowed and the petitioner (claimant) was held entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,00,728/- to be paid by respondents No. 1 and 3, jointly and severally alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. In addition to the aforesaid amount, the claimant was also held entitled for expenses of the petition to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 28.02.2013 for enhancement of the same. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal below has erred in calculating the medical expenses incurred by the appellant on his treatment. She further submitted that as the claimant remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh, then in IGMC, Shimla and since he was in serious condition, hence, required attendant, throughout. Apart from the attendant charges, the appellant incurred 5 ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) more than Rs. 1,30,000/- on his treatment, i.e. surgeries, medicines and transportation, whereas, learned Tribunal below has only awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,00,728/-. She further contended that the appellant even after being discharged from the hospital, till date, is undergoing treatment for the injuries suffered by him, as such, the learned Tribunal below has failed to take into consideration the rise in price index. Therefore, she prayed that present appeal may be allowed and the compensation, as awarded, may be enhanced. 10. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal. 11. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully examined the entire records. 12. The perusal of the impugned award shows that the learned Tribunal below has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,409/- on account of medical treatment as per bills, Ext. PW-2/2 to Ext. PW-2/32, which is correct as per the bills 6 ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) submitted by the claimant. The learned Tribunal below has also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,319/- on account of transportation charges and Rs. 30,000/- on account of attendant charges @ Rs. 2,000/- per day, as the claimant remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh w.e.f. 15.12.2009 to 18.12.2009, i.e. four days and thereafter in IGMC, Shimla w.e.f. 19.12.2009 to 29.12.2009, i.e. eleven days, which means, that the claimant remained hospitalized for 15 days. However, learned counsel for the appellant, has failed to point out any error in awarding the compensation under these heads. 13. Further, the learned Tribunal below has awarded Rs. 50,000/- on account of pain and sufferings. Since the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and he has to remain hospitalized for 15 days and had been operated twice, therefore, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as awarded on account of pain and suffering is on the lesser side. In the opinion of this Court a sum of Rs. 75,000/- would be a just compensation under this head. 14. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, 7 ( 2026:HHC:6652 ) the appeal is allowed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is modified to the extent that the claimant is now entitled to a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of pain and suffering, as against the amount of Rs. 50,000/- that has been awarded by learned Tribunal below. Thus a total sum of Rs. 1,25,728/- is awarded to the claimant. The rest of the terms of award, including the interest component, shall remain the same. 16. No other point was urged before me. 17. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending applications, if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 11th March, 2026 (raman) 8