1 2026:HHC:15682 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. FAO (MV) No. 107 of 2014 Reserved on : 18.04.2026 Decided on : 08.05.2026 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Smt. Reena and others ...Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the appellant: Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. Vinod Kumar, Advocate, vice Mr. Nimish Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Mr. Vijay Mokta, Advocate, vice Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 6. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2026:HHC:15682 Virender Singh, Judge Appellant-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 16.01.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’), in MAC No. 50/2012, (Regd. No. 403/2013), titled as ‘Smt. Reena & Others Versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Others’. 2. By way of the award, dated 16.01.2014, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3 and awarded a sum of Rs. 19,59,480/- in equal shares, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of the awarded amount. 3. Although, the Insurance Company has been directed to deposit the awarded amount, however, recovery rights have been given to the Insurance Company to recover the same, from insured, by filing the Execution Petition. 3 2026:HHC:15682 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:- 5.1 The petitioners being widow, minor son and mother of Sh. Yog Raj, have filed the petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act against the respondents, being insurer of the vehicle No. HP01C-0153, registered owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the respondent No. 4 being the person, in whose possession, the said vehicle was, at the relevant time, on the ground that Sh. Yog Raj, was travelling in the vehicle No. HP01C-0153 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), from Tissa to Chilli. When, the said vehicle reached near Pangola Nallah, respondent No. 3, Ramesh Kumar was driving the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to the said fact, he could not control the vehicle and accident had taken place, which resulted into severe head injury and other injuries on the person of Yog Raj. 4 2026:HHC:15682 5.2 According to the petitioners, Sh. Yog Raj died at the spot and his dead body was taken to PHC Nakror, District Chamba, H.P., where, the postmortem of the dead body was conducted. The information regarding the accident was given to police of Police Station Tissa, District Chamba, H.P. 5.3 According to the petitioners, Sh. Yog Raj, at the time of his death, was about 26 years and he was mason by profession. His income has been pleaded as Rs. 10,000/- per month. Since, the accident in question, has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3 Ramesh Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, as such, the petitioners, have sought compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/-, along with interest, at the rate of 12% per annum, from the date of filing the petitioner, till realization of the whole amount, from the respondents. 5.4 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. 5 2026:HHC:15682 7. Insurance Company (respondent No. 1) has filed the separate reply by taking preliminary objections that the claim petition is not maintainable. According to respondent No. 1, respondent No. 2 Virender Singh, had sold the offending vehicle to one Latif Mohd. This fact has been pleaded to seek exoneration of the liability to pay the amount of compensation. In addition to this, preliminary objections have also been taken qua the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time; owner was aware about the fact that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake; the vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; and that Sh. Yog Raj was travelling in the offending vehicle other than for hire or reward. 7.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied. 8. Respondent No. 2 has filed the reply, by taking the preliminary objection that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable, as Sh. Latif Mohd. S/o Abdul Sattar has 6 2026:HHC:15682 purchased the offending vehicle by way of sale and purchase agreement dated 27.02.2012. Petition is stated to be bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 8.1 On merits, the claim petition has mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 9. Respondent No. 3 has opted not to contest the claim petition. 10. Respondent No. 4, has filed the reply taking preliminary objections that the vehicle is comprehensively insured with Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., as such, respondent No. 1 is liable to indemnify respondent No. 4, in case, any liability is fastened upon them. Contents of the claim petition have been denied for want of knowledge. However, the factum of accident has not been disputed. 10.1 According to him, respondent No. 2 Virender Singh, was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. 10.2 Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition. 7 2026:HHC:15682 11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned MACT on 12.08.2013:- 1. Whether the deceased Yog Raj had died on account of accident of vehicle No. HP01C-0153 due to rash or negligent driving of driver i.e. respondent No. 3 Ramesh Kumar after vehicle met with an accident on 08.02.2012, around 7:00 PM at place Pangola Nallah, Tissa-Chamba Road, District Chamba, H.P.? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from when of the respondents? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR 1 & 2. 4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No. 3) was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged? OPR-1 5. Whether the offending vehicle was not having valid registration certificate, route permit and valid fitness certificate as alleged? OPR-1 6. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of Insurance Policy, as alleged? OPR-1 7. Whether the petitioners have not approached this Tribunal with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts? OPR-1 8. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 9. Relief. 8 2026:HHC:15682 12. In this case, an application under Section 170 of M.V. Act filed by the Insurance Company has been allowed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 12.08.2013. 13. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 14. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition, as referred to above, by fastening the liability, to pay the amount, at the first instance, on the insurance company, however, liberty has been given to the Insurance Company to recover it from the insured (respondent No. 2), by filing an Execution Petition, before the learned Tribunal. 15. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal in hand, assailing the award mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation, on the appellant-Insurance Company inspite of the fact, that no reliable evidence has been led on record to prove the income of Sh. Yog Raj, during his life time. 9 2026:HHC:15682 16. According to the appellant-Insurance Company, learned Tribunal has wrongly believed the interested version of PW-2 Mastu and PW-1 Sher Singh as gospel truth, by holding that the deceased was proved to be skilled mason, during his life time and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, whereas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the family of Sh. Yog Raj falls in the definition of IRDP category. The learned Tribunal is stated to have ignored the fact that a mason cannot get the work throughout the year. 17. The award has also been sought to be modified/reduced on the ground that petitioner No. 1 had remarried, after the death of Sh. Yog Raj and she has not bothered to put appearance in the witness box to depose her case. 18.1 According to the appellant, a wrong multiplier has been applied by the learned Tribunal and deduction was made to the extent of 1/5th only, whereas the same is required to be deducted at the rate of 1/3rd. 10 2026:HHC:15682 18.2 The award has also been assailed on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation under the heads “Loss of Love and Affection”, “Loss of Consortium” and “Loss of care and guidance”. 18.3 On the basis of above facts, Sh. Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed by reducing the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 19. Per contra, Sh. Surender K. Sharma, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 (petitioners) has prayed that the appeal sans merits and prayed that the awarded amount may kindly be enhanced, so that the same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’. 20. Similarly, the learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 to 6, has prayed that the appeal sans merits and the same may kindly be dismissed by setting aside the right given to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 11 2026:HHC:15682 21. The provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of Legislation and the proceedings under the M.V. Act for deciding the claim petition are summary in nature, where the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed on the preponderance of probabilities. 22. The Insurance Company is before this Court, for reducing the amount of compensation awarded to the petitioners. The endeavor of the Court/Tribunal is to award ‘just compensation’, while deciding the claim petition and appeal arising out of the award passed by learned Tribunal. 23. In order to assess the fact, whether the ‘just compensation’ has been awarded to the petitioners, the first and foremost question, which, arises before this Court is with regard to the age of deceased, during his lifetime. As per the claim petition, Sh. Yog Raj was 26 years of age. Almost similar age has been mentioned in postmortem report Ext. P- 1. As such, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the age of Sh. Yog Raj, at the time of his death, as 26 years. 12 2026:HHC:15682 24. As per the claim petition, Sh. Yog Raj was working as a mason, during his life time and as such, he was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. The accident in question had taken place on 08.02.2012. The petitioners have examined one Sh. Sher Singh as PW-1, who has deposed that he had hired the services of Sh. Yog Raj as mason, on payment of Rs. 300/- per day. Mother of the deceased Yog Raj, when appeared in the witness box as PW-2 also deposed that her son was skilled mason and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Even in the cross-examination, she has reiterated that her son was earning Rs. 300/- per day. In the claim petition, income of Sh. Yog Raj has been pleaded as Rs. 10,000/- per month, however, in view of the statement made by PW-1 on oath, as well as, reply given by PW-2 in her cross-examination, wherein she has deposed that her son was earning Rs. 300/- per day, this Court is of the view that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of Sh. Yog Raj as Rs. 10,000/- per month and the same comes to Rs. 9,000/- per month. 25. In view of the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Sarla Verma Vs Delhi Transport Corportation, 13 2026:HHC:15682 2009 (6) SCC 121”, increase of 40% is to be made, on account of future prospects, had he been alive. Income of Sh. Yog Raj, during his life time is held to be Rs. 9,000/- per month and at the time of his death, he was working in unorganized sector, as such, 40% is liable to be added on account of his future prospect. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs. 9,000/- + 40% of Rs. 9,000/- = Rs. 9,000/- + Rs. 3,600/- = Rs. 12,600/-. 26. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/5th out of the income of Sh. Yog Raj, during his lifetime, on account of his personal expenses, had he been alive. The said approach is also not sustainable in the eyes of law, as the number of dependents of Sh. Yog Raj were only three. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), 1/3rd is required to be deducted, on account of personal expenses of the deceased, had he been alive. As such, his contribution towards his family comes to Rs.12,600 – Rs. 4,200 = Rs. 8,400/- per month. 27. In view of the age of Sh. Yog Raj, at the time of his death, which has been assessed by this Court as 26 years, 14 2026:HHC:15682 multiplier of 17 is to be applied in the present case, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra). Thus, the learned Tribunal has fallen into an error in applying the multiplier of ‘18’, taking into account the age of the deceased. Thus, the loss of income is assessed as Rs. 8,400 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 17,13,600/-. 28. In addition to this, the petitioners are also held entitled for compensation, under the conventional heads, as per the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680”. Although, it has been argued by learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the petitioner No. 1 has now remarried, but this does not dis-entitle her to claim compensation. 29. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, all the petitioners are held entitled for the amount of loss of consortium. The 15 2026:HHC:15682 relevant paras 21 to 24 of the judgment are reproduced, as under:- “21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Pranay Sethi dealt with the various heads under which compensation is to be awarded in a death case. One of these heads is loss of consortium. In legal parlance, "consortium" is a compendious term which encompasses `spousal consortium', `parental consortium', and `filial consortium'. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased, which is a loss to his family. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse: 21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined as rights pertaining to the relationship of a husband-wife which allows compensation to the surviving spouse for loss of "company, society, co-operation, affection, and aid of the other in every conjugal relation”. 21.2. Parental consortium is granted to the child upon the premature death of a parent, for loss of "parental aid, protection, affection, society, discipline, guidance and training." 21.3. Filial consortium is the right of the parents to compensation in the case of an accidental death of a child. An accident leading to the death of a child causes great shock and agony to the parents and family of the deceased. The greatest agony for a parent is to lose their child during their lifetime. Children are valued for their love, affection, companionship and their role in the family unit. 22. Consortium is a special prism reflecting changing norms about the status and worth of actual relationships. Modern jurisdictions world- 16 2026:HHC:15682 over have recognized that the value of a child's consortium far exceeds the economic value of the compensation awarded in the case of the death of a child. Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to be awarded compensation under loss of consortium on the death of a child. The amount awarded to the parents is a compensation for loss of the love, affection, care and companionship of the deceased child. 23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims or their families, in cases of genuine claims. In case where a parent has lost their minor child, or unmarried son or daughter, the parents are entitled to be awarded loss of consortium under the head of filial consortium. Parental consortium is awarded to children who lose their parents in motor vehicle accidents under the Act. A few High Courts have awarded compensation on this count. However, there was no clarity with respect to the principles on which compensation could be awarded on loss of filial consortium. 24. The amount of compensation to be awarded as consortium will be governed by the principles of awarding compensation under `loss of consortium' as laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra). In the present case, we deem it appropriate to award the father and the sister of the deceased, an amount of Rs. 40,000 each for loss of Filial Consortium.” 30. Before assessing the entitlement of the petitioners for compensation under conventional heads, it is apt for this Court to reproduce relevant paragraph 59.8 of Pranay Sethi case (supra), which is reproduced as under:- 17 2026:HHC:15682 “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 amount should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 31. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, is adjudicated, as under: 1. Loss of income = Rs. 17,13,600/- 2. Loss of consortium = Rs.1,56,000/- (Rs. 40,000 x 3 + Rs. 36,000/-) 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 19,500/- (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 4,500/-) 4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 19,500/- (Rs. 15,000 + Rs. 4,500/-) _________________________________________________________ Total = Rs. 19,08,600/-. ________________________________________________________ 32. The learned Tribunal has awarded the rate of interest to the petitioners at the rate of 9% per annum, which according to the considered opinion of this Court is liable to be reduced and consequently, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 33. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed and the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs. 19,59,480/- to Rs. 18 2026:HHC:15682 19,08,600/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of award amount. Hence, the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified. Ordered accordingly. 34. No other point has been urged or argued. 35. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly. 36. Parties are left to bear their own costs. 37. Record be sent back. (Virender Singh) 08th May, 2026 Judge (Pramod Kumar)