1 2026:HHC:17765 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. : 355 of 201 7 Reserved on : 06 th May, 2026 Decided on : 18 th May , 2026 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited ...Appellant Versus Sharda Devi & Others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Virender Singh, Judge Appellant-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, through its 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 01.06.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr, District Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MACT’), in M.A.C. Petition No.0000015 of 2014, titled as ‘Sharda Devi & Another versus Praveen Chhikara & Others’. 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2026:HHC:17765 2 2. By way of award dated 01.06.2016, the learned MACT has allowed the claim petition, filed by respondent No.1 and 2, by awarding a sum of Rs.11,45,244/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the amount, by fastening the ultimate liability to pay the compensation amount upon the appellant-insurer. 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. Petitioners, being widow and son of Shri Krishan Singh, have filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, being owner, driver and insurer of vehicle No. DL-10CG-0229 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest Krishan Singh died in a road side accident, having taken place at Jahu, on 08.05.2013, at about 5.20 a.m., involving the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No.2 in a rash and negligent manner. 2026:HHC:17765 3 4.2. According to the petitioners, Krishan Singh, at the time of accident was 53 years of age and he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, as according to the petitioners, he was contractor, agriculturist, horticulturist and commission agent. 4.3. The information of the accident was given to the police of Police Station Rampur Bushehr, where FIR No. 80/13 dated 08.05.2013, was registered. Since the accident in question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle, as such the petitioners have sought the compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing separate replies. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed their joint reply, by taking the plea that respondent No.2 was not negligent, in the accident, in question, however, the registration of the FIR has not been disputed. The other contents have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 6. Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded by respondents No.1 and 2 that the accident, in question, had 2026:HHC:17765 4 taken place due to the reason that respondent No.2, had tried to save a stray cow, who, all of a sudden, came in front of the offending vehicle. 7. Insurance-Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable; the petitioners have no locus standi to file the claim petition; the offending vehicle is being permitted to ply, in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence; and the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners, in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2. 8. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied and a prayer has been made to dismiss the petition. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned MACT has framed the following issues, vide order dated 09.09.2015: 1. Whether Sh. Krishan Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident on account of the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.DL-10CG-0299 (Renault Duster), being driven by respondent No.2? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 2026:HHC:17765 5 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR-3 4. Whether the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petition, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the insured has violated the mandatory terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Whether the insured at the relevant time was not possessing valid registration certificate and fitness certificate, as alleged? OPR-3 7. Whether respondent No.2, at the relevant time was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? OPR-3 8. Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with respondents No.1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 9. Relief. 10. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 11. 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. 12. Feeling aggrieved from the said award passed by the learned MACT, respondent No.3-Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, has assailed the said award before this Court, on the ground, that the learned MACT has not taken into consideration the fact that at the time accident, the 2026:HHC:17765 6 driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. 13. The award has further been assailed on the ground that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was got verified by the appellant-Insurance Company, but, the said verification report could not be submitted before the learned MACT, as, the copy of the same was not made available to the counsel by the dealing Manager, on account of strained relation, who had left the job in the year 2015. Thereafter, the copy of the verification report was made available to the learned counsel on 25.05.2016, in the evening, by that time, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has made the statement regarding the closure of the evidence on behalf of respondent No.3. 14. Thereafter, the learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, has moved application for leading additional evidence, which was also rejected by the learned MACT. Heavily relying upon the record of the Licencing Authority Farukabad, the award has been assailed on the ground that there is no record of driving licence No.8725/FKD/2009 with the Licencing Authority, RTO, Farukabad. 2026:HHC:17765 7 15. In addition to this, the amount of compensation awarded by the learned MACT has been sought to be reduced on the ground that learned MACT has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month, without any proof and according to the appellant, in the absence of any proof, with respect to the income of the deceased, the same is required to be taken at the rate of minimum wages, prevalent at the relevant time. It is further case of the appellant that at the relevant time, the minimum wages were Rs.3600/- per month. 16. Similarly, the award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned MACT has erred in adding Rs.1,000/-, on account of cost of service of the deceased and the learned MACT has wrongly given addition of 15% on account of future prospects, whereas, deceased was not working in any regular establishment. 17. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to exonerate the appellant-Insurance Company from paying the amount of compensation, by fastening the liability upon the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 18. Along with the appeal, the appellant has moved application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, bearing CMP 2026:HHC:17765 8 No.6944 of 2017. As per the application, the company had deputed M/s Real Investigator to investigate the genuineness of the driving licence bearing DL No.8725/FKD/ 2009, issued by Licencing Authority, RTO, Farukabad, as the copy of the same was supplied by respondent No.4. Report submitted by the investigator is annexed with the application as Annexure A-2, however, according to the appellant, the same could not be taken on record, due to strained relations between the counsel representing the Insurance Company with the dealing Manager. 19. It has also been pleaded in the application that despite due diligence, the said verification report could not be placed on record. 20. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the application. 21. Although, reply to the application has not been filed, however, the same has been opposed by tooth and nail. 22. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioners and respondents No.1 and 2, have closed their evidence on 01.12.2015. Thereafter, the case was listed by the learned MACT, for the evidence of respondent No.3-Insurance Company (appellant herein). Despite availing number of 2026:HHC:17765 9 opportunities, neither steps for summoning the witnesses were taken by respondent No.3, nor, any RW had been examined by it. 23. As per the zimni orders, passed by the learned MACT, four effective opportunities were given and on the fifth opportunity, i.e., on 25.05.2016, learned counsel for respondent No.3, has closed the evidence on behalf of respondent No.3. 24. Respondent No.3 has assailed the award on the ground that after receiving the verification report on 25.05.2016, the application to lead additional evidence was moved, but, the same was dismissed by the learned MACT, however, on the record of learned MACT, no such application is available. 25. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company on 28.12.2016. Along with the appeal, application, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been filed, annexing therewith the photocopy of the verification report. 26. Merely, on the basis of the report of Licencing Authority, qua the fact that the record of DL No.8725/FKD/2009, is not available, it cannot be held that the driving licence of respondent No.2 was fake. Record of 2026:HHC:17765 10 licencing authority is to be read as a whole, which is reproduced, as under :- “उप सम्भभागगीय पररिवहन कभायभा቟ኋलय, फर቟ኋ खभाबभाद मम डडभाइवववग लभाइसमस सम्बन्धगी कभायरव मम व्यभापक अवनयवमततभा कके ्ቚकभाश मम आनके परि अवभलकेख आवश्यक जभावच पड़तभाल कके ललयके सम्भभागगीय पररिवहन अलधकभारिगी कभायभा቟ኋलय कभानपपुरि मम जमभा करिभा वदयके गयके हहै। जहभाव अवभलकेखोመ मम दज቟ኋ लभाइसमसोመ कक जभावच करिभाई जभा रिहगी हहै। कवतपयय अ्ቚभाप/गभायब पभायके गयके डडभाइवववग लभाइसमस कके ररिकभाड቟ኋ कके सम्बन्ध मम मपुक्ቌमभा - ककोतवभालगी फतकेहगढ, फर቟ኋ खभाबभाद मम दज቟ኋ हहै। जभावच कके अनपुसभारि डडभाइवववग लभाइसमस सव० 8725/फर቟ኋ 0/2009 कभा ररिकभाड቟ኋ उपलब्ध नहीሻ हहै। (Following the discovery of widespread irregularities in driving license-related work at the Sub-Divisional Transport Office (SDTO), Farrukhabad, the records have been deposited at the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) office in Kanpur for necessary investigation, intended solely for the use of the insurance company. The licenses recorded in the documents are currently being investigated. A lawsuit has been filed at the Kotwali Fatehgarh police station, Farrukhabad, regarding the records of certain missing/not found driving licenses. According to the investigation, the record for driving license no. 8725/Farru/2009 is not available.)" 27. In the above backdrop, this Court is of the view that even if the said document is taken into consideration, the Insurance Company has not succeeded in proving the fact that the owner has handed over the offending vehicle to a person, knowing fully well that he, i.e., driver did not have a valid and effective driving licence. 2026:HHC:17765 11 28. Even otherwise, the original report has not been annexed with the application, nor is there anything on the record to demonstrate that the said report could not be produced despite due diligence. As such, the application, under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, is dismissed. 29. In this case, the Insurance Company has also made a prayer to reduce the amount of compensation, on the grounds, as referred to above. 30. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited versus Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987, has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court should be to provide “just compensation” to the petitioners. The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- “23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers and/or by use of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be determined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of determining the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award 2026:HHC:17765 12 determining the amount of compensation which appears to be just. 24. Both the Acts aim at providing for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available only to the persons specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto.” (self emphasis supplied) 31. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila & Others versus Sudhakar & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 343. Relevant paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, are reproduced, as under:- 19) In our considered opinion, although the High Court had enhanced the compensation, it was on the lower side. The cardinal principle of awarding compensation in the cases of motor accidents is to provide a “just compensation” to the victim and/or the distressed dependents of the deceased. The term “just” implies that the compensation must be fair, reasonable, and equitable as per the applicable legal standards. The compensation should not be too meagre, nor should it be excessive. The sole foundation of providing monetary compensation is to make efforts to put the dependents of the deceased at the same financial position that they were in, had the accident not occurred. [See also: Reshma Kumari and others vs. Madan Mohan and another, reported in (2013) 9 SCC 65; National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava & Ors, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 763; and Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. Mahadeva Shetty and another, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 197] 2026:HHC:17765 13 20) Thus, in the light of the settled principle that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”) is a beneficial legislation and the compensation should be just and equitable, let us deal with the issues for determination in the present appeal. 32. Being guided by the above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court would now proceed further to determine as to whether the amount of compensation, awarded by the learned MACT to the petitioners, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’ or not. 33. As per the stand taken by the petitioners, Shri Krishan Singh was about 53 years of age and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In order to buttress their contentions, it was pleaded that he was working with M/s Rajiv Kumar Ramesh Kumar Fruit & Commission Agents D- 12-16, New Subzi Mandi Azadpur Delhi -110033. 34. To support, the said bald assertion, in the claim petition, neither any documentary proof from M/s Rajiv Kumar Ramesh Kumar Fruit & Commission Agents has been annexed, nor, any person from the said firm has been examined. Smt. Sharda Devi, when appeared in the witness- box has also not bothered to name M/s Rajiv Kumar Ramesh Kumar Fruit & Commission Agents, as the employer of her 2026:HHC:17765 14 husband. She has simply stated that her husband was horticulturist and contractor, as well as, working as Commission Agent and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. 35. Situation would have been otherwise, had the averments, as per column Nos.5 and 6 of the claim petition, not been pleaded. Once, there are pleadings, with regard to the working and earning of the deceased, during his life time, then, non-examination of any person or non-production of any documentary proof, with regard to the working of deceased, as Commission Agent, is fatal for the case of the petitioners. 36. Except the statement of petitioner Sharda Devi, no other evidence has been adduced. A specific suggestion has been put to PW-1 that her husband was not earning Rs.20,000/- per month. Even, at that time, she has not uttered anything about the employer of her husband, i.e., M/s Rajiv Kumar Ramesh Kumar Fruit & Commission Agents, D-12-16 New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur Delhi. 37. Learned MACT has taken the income of Shri Krishan Singh, during his life time as Rs.6,000/- per month. While doing so, the learned MACT has applied the formula of minimum wages fixed by the State Government. The said 2026:HHC:17765 15 approach of the learned MACT is not sustainable in the eyes of law, as, in the year 2013, when, Krishan Singh expired, minimum wages for unskilled labour was Rs.150/- per day, as per the notification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, under the Minimum Wages Act, dated 26.09.2012 No.Shram (A) 1-2/2009(M.W.), which comes to Rs.4500/- per month. As such, the learned MACT has fallen into an error by holding the income of Shri Krishan Singh, as Rs.6,000/- per month. 38. While deciding the claim petition, although, the evidence of the parties is to be tested on the touchstone of probabilities, but, this does not permit the learned MACT/ Court to base its findings on the wrong provisions of Law. Once, the wages have been determined, on the basis of the Minimum Wages Act, then, the same should have been done, as per the notification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, as referred to above. The said notification was in vogue, as such, the learned MACT has fallen into error by holding the income of Shri Krishan Singh, as Rs.6,000/- per month. By applying the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, the same should have been Rs.4,500/- per month. Ordered accordingly. 2026:HHC:17765 16 39. As per the claim petition, the age of deceased Krishan Singh, at the time of his death was 53 years. Petitioner No.1, while appearing in the witness-box as PW-1, has again asserted the same age. Even, in the postmortem report Ex.PW-1/C, same age has been mentioned. As such, in the absence of any evidence, there is no occasion for this Court to take age of the deceased contrary to the said age. Learned MACT has rightly taken the age of deceased as 53 years, at the time of his death. 40. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, 10% amount is liable to be added, towards future prospects, in the monthly income of deceased Shri Krishan Singh. In order to ascertain the established income of deceased during his life time, his established income comes to Rs.4950/-, per month. 41. Learned MACT, in the present case, has rightly deducted 1/3rd, out of the income of deceased Krishan Singh, towards his personal expenses, had he been alive. Thus, his contribution towards his family comes to Rs.3,300/- per month. 2026:HHC:17765 17 42. Learned MACT has applied the multiplier of ‘11’ and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma versus Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121, the same does not require any interference. 43. In this case, the learned MACT has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the head loss of estate; a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses and costs of litigation; a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, under the head loss of consortium; Rs.1,00,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.1,00,000/- expectation of life. The said findings of the learned MACT are required to be interfered with, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case supra. Relevant paragraphs 59.8 of the judgment is reproduced, as under:- 59.8. Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 44. The learned MACT has erred in awarding the compensation under the heads, ‘loss of estate’; ‘funeral expenses’ and ‘costs of litigation’; ‘loss of consortium’; ‘love 2026:HHC:17765 18 and affection’; and ‘expectation of life’. However, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, both the petitioners are entitled to the compensation, under the head ‘loss of consortium’. 45. Consequently, the entitlement of all the petitioners are liable to be reassessed, by this Court, which is as under:- 1. Loss of contribution = Rs.4,35,600/-(`3300/-x12x11) 2.Loss of estate = `19,500/- (`15,000/- + `4500/-) 3.Funeral expenses= `19,500/- (`15,000/- + `4500/-) 4.Loss of consortium=`1,04,000/-(`40,000x2+ `24,000/-) Total= Rs.435,600+19,500+19,500+ Rs.1,04,000=Rs.5,78,600/- 46. Considering the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushila’s case supra has held that the amount of compensation neither should be too meagre, nor should it be excessive, the appeal of the appellant is liable to be accepted and the amount of compensation is ordered to be reduced from Rs.11,45,244/- to Rs.5,78,600/- 47. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The awarded amount is reduced, in the above terms. The petitioners are held entitled for the amount of Rs.5,78,600/-, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of petition 2026:HHC:17765 19 till the date of deposit by the respondents. The award is inclusive of the amount, if any, awarded under Section 140 of the Act. The amount of compensation is apportioned, between the petitioners, as under:- Petitioner No.1 : 75% Petitioner No.2 : 25% 48. The award passed by the learned MACT is modified in the above terms. 49. Memo of costs be prepared. 50. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) May 18, 2026 (ps) Judge