SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs RECHANO DEVI

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

1 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
        FAO (MVA) No. 439 of 2017 a/w
FAO (MVA) No. 422 of 2017
Reserved on : 25.09.2026
         Decided on : 16.10.2026
Uploaded on : 16.10.2026
(1) FAO (MVA) No. 439 of 2017
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.     ...Appellant
Versus
Sh. Kalyan Singh & Ors.        ...Respondents
  
(2) FAO (MVA) No. 422 of 2017
Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.     ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Rehano Devi & Ors.        ...Respondents
  
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?  Yes.
For the appellant:   Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents:   Mr.   Divya   Raj   Singh,
Advocate, for respondents No.
1 to 5, in FAO (MVA) No. 439
of   2017   and   for   respondents
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
No. 1 to 7, in FAO (MVA) No.
422 of 2017.
Mr. Sarthak Mehta, Advocate,
for respondents No. 6 & 7, in
FAO   (MVA)   No.   439   of   2017
and for respondents No. 8 & 9
in FAO (MVA) No. 422 of 2017.
 
Virender Singh, Judge  
The above titled appeals are being decided by a
common   judgment,   as   the   appellant­Shriram   General
Insurance   Company   Ltd.,   has   filed   these   appeals,   under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to
as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the awards, dated 30.06.2017,
passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­II,
Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as
‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No. 149­N/2 of 2013/12,
titled as ‘Kalyan Singh & Ors. Versus Mohd. Saleem & Ors.’,
as well as, MAC Petition No. 150­N/2 of 2013/12, titled as
‘Rehano Devi & Ors. Versus Mohd. Saleem & Ors.’, arising
out   of   the   accident,   involving   truck   No.   HP17A­8427,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), which has
occurred   on   27.04.2012   near   Dhab   Pipli,   Tehsil   Paonta
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the
accident in question’). 
2. By way of the above awards, the learned Tribunal
has allowed the above titled claim petitions, by awarding a
sum of Rs. 10,97,000/­ along with interest at the rate of
7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition, till the
final realization of the amount, by fastening the ultimate
liability   to   pay   the   amount   of   compensation   upon   the
Insurance   Company,   in   MAC   Petition   No.   149­N/2   of
2013/12,   titled   as   ‘Kalyan   Singh   &   Ors.   Versus   Mohd.
Saleem & Ors.’ and while allowing the MAC Petition No. 150­
N/2 of 2013/12, titled as ‘Rehano Devi & Ors. Versus Mohd.
Saleem & Ors.’, has awarded a sum of Rs. 19,71,000/­ along
with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of
filing of the petition, till the final realization of the amount,
by   fastening   the   ultimate   liability   to   pay   the   amount   of
compensation upon the Insurance Company.
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 Tribunal.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
STAND   OF   THE   PETITIONERS   BEFORE   LEARNED
TRIBUNAL:
4. Necessary facts, for the just adjudication of the
above titled appeals, are being borrowed from FAO (MVA) No.
439 of 2017, titled as “Shriram General Insurance Company
Ltd. Versus Kalyan Singh & Ors.”, which has been filed by
the   Insurance   Company,   against   the   award   dated
30.06.2017,   passed   in   MAC   Petition   No.   149­N/2   of
2013/12, by treating the said case as the lead case.
5. The above titled claim petition has been filed by
the petitioners, under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, seeking
compensation,   on   account   of   death   of   Sh.   Kapil,   son   of
petitioners No. 1 & 2 and brother of petitioners No. 3 to 5,
aged about 19 years, at the time of his death, in the accident
in question.  The offending vehicle was owned by respondent
No. 1, being driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with
respondent No. 3.
5.1 The   accident   in   question   is   stated   to   have
occurred   on   account   of   rash   and   negligent   driving   of
respondent   No.   2,   as   according   to   the   petitioners,   on
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
27.04.2012, Kapil along with Gulab Singh, was traveling in
the   tipper,   during   the   course   of   their   employment   as
labourer by respondent No. 1 in the offending vehicle, for
loading and unloading lime stones, sand, bricks etc., which
was going from Sataun to Dhab Pipli.  Respondent No. 2 is
stated   to   be   driving   the   offending   vehicle   in   a   very   high
speed,   rash   and   negligent   manner,   when,   the   offending
vehicle reached near Dhab Pipli at about 5:30 pm, the driver
could not control the offending vehicle, due to which, the
truck   rolled   down   in   the   gorge   and   both   the   occupants
namely Kapil and Gulab Singh, sustained multiple injuries
and when Kapil was taken to hospital, he expired on the
way.     His   postmortem   examination   was   conducted   on
28.04.2012   by   M.O.   Civil   Hosptial   Paonta   Sahib.     The
information regarding the accident was given to police of
Police   Station   Paonta   Sahib,   where   FIR   No.   148,   dated
27.04.2012, under Sections 279, 337 & 304­A of IPC was
registered.  However, according to the petitioner, due to the
clerical   mistake   in   the   FIR,   registration   number   of   the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
offending   vehicle   has   been   recorded   as   ‘HP17B­8427’,
instead of ‘HP17A­8427’.
5.2 According to the petitioners, Kapil was working
as   labourer   in   the   offending   vehicle   for   loading   and
unloading   the   sand   and   bricks.     Since,   the   accident   in
question has solely been attributed to the rash and negligent
driving of respondent No. 2, as such, petitioners, by pleading
their   bright   past   and   bleak   future,   have   sought   the
compensation, from the respondents.  
STAND   OF   THE   RESPONDENTS   BEFORE   LEARNED
TRIBUNAL:
6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been
contested by the respondents.
6.1 Respondents  No.  1 and  2, have filed  the joint
reply, in which, they have taken the stand by denying that
Kapil was employed as labourer by them.  However, contents
of paras 9 and 10 of the claim petition, qua the accident and
registration of FIR, have been admitted.  According to them,
at the time of accident, Kapil and Gulab Singh were going on
foot and due to the sudden failure of the breaking system,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
respondent No. 2 could not control the offending vehicle and
the same rolled down in the gorge, causing injuries to Kapil
and   Gulab   Singh.     Other   allegations,   qua   the   rash   and
negligent driving against respondent No. 2, have also been
denied.
6.2 Respondent No. 3 has filed its separate reply by
taking preliminary objections that the driver of the vehicle
did not possess valid and effective driving license at the time
of accident; Kapil was a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger
and as such, his risk was not covered under the insurance
policy; the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms
and   conditions   of   the   insurance   policy;   and   petition   has
been filed in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2.
6.3 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have
been denied for want of knowledge.
7. Thus,   the   respondents   have   prayed   for   the
dismissal of the claim petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
8. From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 11.04.2013:­
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

8 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
1.  Whether   deceased   Kapil   has   suffered   fatal   injuries   on
account of rash and negligent driving of truck/tipper No.
HP17­8427 on the part of respondent No. 2, on 27.04.2012
at about 5:30 pm, near Dhab Pipli, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, as
alleged? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 above is proved, whether the petitioners are
entitled to the compensation if so, to what amount and from
whom? OPP
3. Whether the deceased was an unauthorized passenger in
the offending vehicle, as alleged? OPR­3
4. Whether   the   offending   vehicle   was   being   plied   by
respondents   No.   1   and   2   in   violation   of   the   terms   and
conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? OPR­3
5. Whether   the   driver   of   the   offending   vehicle   was   not
possessing a valid and effective driving licence at the time
of accident, as alleged? OPR­3
6. Whether the present petition has been filed in collusion with
respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR­3
7. Relief. 
9. Thereafter, the parties to the  lis  were directed to
adduce evidence.
10. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petitions,
as   referred   to   above,   by   fastening   the   liability   upon   the
Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation, as
referred above. 
STAND   OF   THE   INSURANCE   COMPANY   BEFORE   THIS
COURT:
11. Feeling   aggrieved   from   the   said   award,   the
Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has preferred
the appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act, challenging the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

9 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
award mainly on the ground, that the learned Tribunal has
wrongly decided issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company,
as it is the case of the petitioners that Kapil was traveling in
the   offending   vehicle,   whereas   RW­3   (owner)   has
categorically   stated   that   neither   Kapil   was   employed   as
labourer, nor he was his employee.
12. Similarly, according to the Insurance Company,
the   learned   Tribunal   has   not   considered   the   evidence   of
investigating officer, when he appeared in the witness box as
RW­5, who has stated that in the offending vehicle, 9 to 10
persons were traveling.
13. Heavily relying upon the document Ext. RW3/C,
Registration Certificate of the offending vehicle, the prayer to
exonerate the Insurance Company has been made on the
ground that the vehicle in question is a goods vehicle and
meant to carry goods and not the passenger, but, as per the
FIR, deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle.  In this
regard,  the  appellant  has  relied upon  the  document  Ext.
PW1/D.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

10 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
14. The award has also been assailed on the ground
that   the   sine   qua   non   for   seeking   the   amount   of
compensation, i.e. rash and negligent driving of respondent
No. 2, has not been proved in this case, as, according to the
settled principle of law, FIR is not a substantial piece of
evidence and is not per se admissible in evidence.
15. In addition to this, the quantum of compensation
has also been assailed by pleading that the same is on the
higher   side,   as   learned   Tribunal   has   wrongly   taken   the
income   of   deceased   as   Rs.   6,000/­   per   month,   that   too,
without any document.   In this regard, the appellant has
sought the deduction of the amount on the ground that at
the   relevant   time,   the   minimum   wages   in   the   State   of
Himachal   Pradesh   were   Rs.   2,400/­   per   month   qua   the
unskilled worker.
16. The addition of 50%, which has been given by the
learned   Tribunal,   has   also   been   assailed,   on   the   ground
that, as per the settled proposition of law 50% addition has
wrongly been given.  Wrong multiplier is stated to have been
applied and rate of interest has also been challenged.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

11 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
17. On the basis of grounds of appeal, Sh. Jagdish
Thakur,   Advocate,   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
Insurance Company, has prayed that the appeals may kindly
be   allowed   by   exonerating   the   Insurance   Company   from
indemnifying the owner, along with interest, as it has been
proved that respondent No. 1 permitted to ply the offending
vehicle   in   violation   of   the   fundamental   breach   of   the
insurance policy.
18. Per contra, Mr. Divya Raj Singh, learned counsel
appearing   for   respondents   No.   1   to   7/claimants   has
supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal and
prayed   that   the   amount   of   compensation   may   kindly   be
enhanced in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in 
National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi
, so that
& Others, (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680
the   same   could   fall   within   the   definition   of   ‘just
compensation’.
19. Similarly,   Mr.   Sarthak   Mehta,   Advocate,
appearing for owner and driver, has supported the awards
and prayed that the learned Tribunal has rightly appreciated
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

12 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
the evidence by fastening the liability to pay the amount of
compensation upon the Insurance Company and the said
award, according to the learned counsel appearing for the
owner and driver, does not require any interference, by this
Court.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
20. In order to decide the above appeals, it would be
just and appropriate for this Court to discuss the evidence,
so   adduced   by   the   parties   to   the   lis,   before   the   learned
Tribunal.
21. After   framing   of   the   issues,   petitioner   No.   1
Kalyan   Singh,   filed   his   duly   sworn   affidavit,   in   his
examination­in­chief, as Ext. PW1/A, which is based upon
the averments, as made in the claim petition.  In addition to
this,   he   has   produced   the   death   certificate   of   Kapil   Ext.
PW1/B,   copy   of   parivar   register   Ext.   PW1/C,   copy   of
jamabandi Ext. PW1/D, copy of FIR Ext. PW1/E and copy of
postmortem report Ext. PW1/F.
22. In the cross­examination, PW­1 has stated that
the accident in question had not taken place in his presence,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

13 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
as such, he has shown his ignorance about the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.   He
has denied the suggestion that Kapil was not working as
labourer with respondent No. 1.
23. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for
the Insurance Company, he has admitted that deceased was
th th
unmarried.  He has admitted that on 27 /28  April, Bishu
fair was at Sataun.   This person received the information
regarding the accident on the next day.  He has denied that
in the said accident, 10 to 12 persons suffered injuries.  He
has denied that the deceased, along with his companion,
had taken lift in the offending vehicle.
24. The   petitioners   have   examined   one   Tapender
Singh as PW­2, who has filed his affidavit Ext. PW2/A, in
which, he has stated that on 27.04.2012, he had gone to
visit fair at Sataun and after visiting the fair, he was on his
way to his village on foot.  Kapil was working as labourer in
the offending vehicle, which was driven by respondent No. 2.
When, the offending vehicle, reached near village Dhab Pipli,
then,   the   driver   could   not   control   the   offending   vehicle.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

14 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
Consequently,  the  same   fell  down   into   the  gorge,  due  to
which, Kapil and Gulab Singh sustained injuries.  Lastly, he
has stated that the accident in question had taken place due
to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle.
25. In the cross­examination by learned counsel for
the Insurance Company, he has categorically deposed that
at the time of accident, only two persons were there in the
offending vehicle.  The accident in question had taken place
about 100 meters away from this person.  This person has
not reported the matter to the police, however, within 15­20
minutes, number of persons gathered there.
26. To rebut this evidence, the respondents examined
RW­1   Ms.   Vandana,   Clerk   RTO   Office   Nahan,   who   has
proved the route permit Ext. RW1/A and Ext. RW1/B.
27. RW­2 R.S. Bedi, proved the screen report of the
offending vehicle Ext. RW2/A.   The fitness certificate was
valid up to 22.08.2014.
28. RW­3 Mohd.  Saleem,  who  is  the  owner  of  the
vehicle, appeared in the witness box and deposed that he is
owner of the offending vehicle.   The insurance was valid
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

15 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
w.e.f.   16.03.2012   to   15.03.2013.     He   deposed   that
respondent No. 2 was employed as driver and he proved his
driving license as Ext. RW3/B, registration certificate of the
offending   vehicle   Ext.   RW3/C,   route   permit   Ext.   RW1/A.
According   to   him,   neither   Kapil   nor   Gulab   Singh   were
working as labourer with him and according to him at the
time of accident, they were pedestrian, on the road and due
to the failure of the braking system, the passers­by were
being caught in the offending vehicle.  He has admitted that
in   the   accident,   Gulab   Singh   and   Kapil   sustained   fatal
injuries, but, denied that Kapil was working as labourer over
the offending vehicle.
29. In the cross­examination by the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company, he has stated that at the time of
accident, except the driver, no other person was there in the
offending vehicle.  Death of two persons in the accident has
also been admitted.  According to him, Bishu fair was on the
day of accident.
30. RW­4   Sadhu   Ram,   who   is   the   driver   of   the
offending   vehicle,   also   deposed   on   the   similar   lines,   by
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

16 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
stating that the accident in question had taken place due to
the failure of the braking system.  He deposed that he was
the only person, who was in the offending vehicle, and Kapil
and   Gulab   Singh   were   not   in   the   offending   vehicle.     He
proved his license Ext. RW3/B.  The FIR qua the accident in
question was registered against this witness.
31. RW­5 SI Kanwar Singh, has investigated the case
FIR No. 148/2012 and as per his investigation, it was found
that in the offending vehicle, there were 9 to 10 persons
traveling.  They were returning back after visiting the Bishu
fair.  He has proved the MLCs of injured as Ext. RW5/A to
Ext. RW5/I.  In the accident Gulab Singh, Kapil and Gorakh
Bahadur had sustained the fatal injuries.  The persons, who
died   in   the   accident   were   also   traveling   in   the   offending
vehicle.     Tapender   Singh   was   never   associated   in   the
investigation, nor cited as prosecution witness.  This witness
has not witnessed the accident in question.  He has feigned
his ignorance that the persons, who sustained injuries/died,
were   pedestrian.     He   further   deposed   that   he   has   no
personal knowledge about  the case in question.   He has
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

17 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
admitted   that   in   the   mechanical   report,   the   cause   of
accident is failure of the braking system.
32. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned,
Ext. PW1/B is the death certificate of Kapil, Ext. PW1/C is
copy of parivar register, Ext. PW1/D is copy of jamabandi,
Ext. PW1/E is copy of FIR and Ext. PW1/F is the copy of
postmortem report.   Whereas, Ext. RW1/A is the Goods/
Contract   Carriage   Permit,   Ext.   RW1/B   is   the   extract   of
register,   Ext.   RW2/A   is   screen   report   of   the   offending
vehicle, Ext. RW3/A is the copy of insurance policy, Ext.
RW3/B is the copy of driving licence of the driver of the
offending vehicle, Ext. RW3/C is the copy of RC. Ext. R­X is
the copy of charge­sheet, Ext. R­2 is certificate­cum­ policy
schedule, Ext. PW5/A to Ext. PW5/I are the copies of MLCs.
33. This is the entire evidence.
34. In this case, the learned Tribunal has fastened
the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the
Insurance Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle.
These   findings   have   been   assailed   by   the   Insurance
Company, by way of present appeal.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

18 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
35. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 3,
in the present case, held that the deceased persons, along
with some other persons, were walking on the road, when,
the   rolling   truck   crushed   them   under   the   same.     These
findings have been assailed by the Insurance Company, by
highlighting the fact that the petitioners, in the present case,
have taken the plea that deceased Kapil was working as
labourer with the offending vehicle, in the claim petition.
The Insurance Company has taken the plea that Kapil was
not   working   as   labourer   with   the   offending   vehicle   and
according to the owner, Kapil was walking on the road and
suddenly due to the failure of the braking system of the
offending vehicle, they came in contact with the offending
vehicle and sustained multiple injuries.
36. The   Insurance   Company   had  taken   a   different
stand, as according to the petitioners their son was traveling
in the offending vehicle as a labourer, whereas, according to
the Insurance Company, the deceased was traveling as a
gratuitous passenger.  Owner and driver have discarded the
said version by pleading that Kapil was not employed as
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

19 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
labourer.  As such, as per the learned counsel appearing for
the Insurance Company, only one conclusion can be drawn
that Kapil was gratuitous passenger.   All these facts, have
been pleaded to demonstrate that Insurance Company is not
liable to pay compensation, as there is fundamental breach
of insurance policy, by carrying the deceased persons, in the
offending vehicle, as gratuitous passengers.
37. Admittedly,   the   petitioners   have   pleaded   that
Kapil was employed as labourer by respondent No. 1, in the
offending vehicle.  Similar stand has been taken by them, in
para   23   of   the   claim   petition.     Out   of   the   petitioners,
petitioner No. 1 Kalyan Singh, appeared as PW­1 and filed
his affidavit as Ext. PW1/A, in which, he reiterated the fact
that   his   son   was   traveling   in   the   offending   vehicle,   as
labourer on 27.04.2012 and the offending vehicle was driven
by Sadhu Ram­respondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent
manner and the vehicle went off the road.  Consequently, his
son Kapil and Gulab Singh sustained injuries and died on
the spot.  But whatsoever he has deposed is not liable to be
taken into consideration, as he has admitted in the cross­
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

20 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
examination by learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2,
that the accident in question had not taken place in his
presence.
38. Similarly,   in   the   cross­examination   by   learned
counsel for respondent No. 3, he has also admitted that at
the time of accident, he was not at the spot and their village
is about 8 to 10 km away from Sataun.   This witness has
received the information regarding the accident on the next
day.     Meaning   thereby,   the   evidence   of   PW­1   is   not
admissible in evidence, on account of the fact that the same
does not fall within the definition of direct evidence, as per
Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 {(Sec. 55 of
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA 2023)}, which is
reproduced, as under:­
“ 60. Oral evidence must be direct.
Oral evidence must, in all cases, whatever, be direct; that is
to say, ­
If it refers to a fact which could be seen, it must be
the evidence of a witness who says he saw it;
If it refers to a fact which could be heard, it must be
the evidence of a witness who says he heard it;
If it refers to a fact which could be perceived by any
sense or in any other manner, it must be the evidence of a
witness who says he perceived it by that sense or in that
manner;
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

21 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
If it refers to an opinion or to the grounds on which
that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of the person
who holds that opinion on those grounds :
Provided that the opinions of experts expressed in
any treatise commonly offered for sale, and the grounds on
which   such   opinions   are   held,   may   be   proved   by   the
production of such treatises if the author is dead or cannot
be found, or has become incapable of giving evidence, or
cannot be called as a witness without an amount of delay
or expense which the Court regards as unreasonable. 
Provided   also   that,   if   oral   evidence   refers   to   the
existence or condition of any material thing other than a
document,   the   Court   may,   if   it   thinks   fit,   require   the
production of such material thing for its inspection.
39. When,   PW­1   has   not   seen   the   accident,   then,
whatsoever he has deposed about the manner, in which, the
accident had taken place cannot be taken as gospel truth.
Moreover, the proceedings under the M.V. Act, deciding the
amount   of   compensation,   cannot   be   equated   with
adversarial litigation and as such, strict rules of pleadings
are not applicable.
40. PW­1 has not disclosed the source of information,
on the basis of which, he has deposed that his son was
traveling in the offending vehicle, as labourer.  As such, the
assertion of PW­1 qua the fact that Kapil was traveling in the
offending vehicle, as labourer, cannot be accepted as gospel
truth.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

22 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
41. So far as the evidence of PW­2 Tapender Singh is
concerned, he is not a summoned witness and as per the
deposition of PW­2, he has appeared in the witness box at
the instance of PW­1.  Moreover, whatsoever PW­2 Tapender
Singh, has deposed regarding the accident in question, the
same is liable to be ignored, as he has deposed that he has
seen the accident at a distance of about 100 meters.  Merely,
on   account   of   allegedly   witnessing   the   accident   from   a
distance of about 100 meters, whatsoever, he has deposed, it
cannot be accepted as gospel truth.
42. The copy of FIR is Ext. PW1/E, which has been
lodged at the instance of one Sunil Kumar son Sh. Kalyan
Singh.     Although,   PW­2   has   given   the   names   of   those
persons,   who   were   allegedly   traveling   in   the   offending
vehicle, but, the person, who had lodged the FIR, has neither
been examined by the petitioners, nor by the respondents.
As   such,   the   contents   of   the   FIR   do   not   require   much
reliance to draw an inference that Kapil was traveling in the
offending   vehicle,   as   a   labourer.     The   statement   under
Section 154 Cr.P.C., is not recorded on oath. 
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

23 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
43. Admittedly,   the   petitioner   was   not   the   eye
witness.  PW­2 has seen the alleged accident from about 100
meters,   as   such,   no   reliance   can   be   placed   upon   his
testimony.   Moreover, the author of the FIR has not been
examined.  In such situation, only one person is left, whose
evidence can be taken into consideration to ascertain the
fact, whether the deceased Kapil was traveling in the vehicle
as labourer, or he has sustained injuries, while walking on
the   road,   when   he   came   in   contact   with   the   offending
vehicle, along with Gulab Singh, is driver of the offending
vehicle (respondent No. 2).  Respondents No. 1 and 2, have
taken the specific plea, in their reply, that at the time of
accident   Kapil   and   Gulab   Singh,   were   on   foot   and   were
walking and due to the failure of the braking system in the
offending vehicle, they came in contact with offending vehicle
and sustained fatal injuries.   It seems that the Insurance
Company has taken the plea with regard to traveling of Kapil
and   Gulab   Singh   in   the   offending   vehicle   as   gratuitous/
unauthorized passengers, on the basis of the stand, as taken
by the petitioners in the claim petition.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

24 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
44. Admittedly, the accident in question has not been
witnessed by the person, who has signed the reply on behalf
of respondent No. 3.  As such, the said stand can be said to
be based upon the averments as made in the claim petition,
which, admittedly has not been made by a person, who has
witnessed the accident in question.   In such situation, the
statement of RW­4 Sadhu Ram, who admittedly was driving
the offending vehicle, can be said to be most important piece
of evidence, to determine the manner, in which, the accident
in question had taken place.  This witness has categorically
stated that at the time of accident, he was all alone in the
vehicle, and due to the failure of the braking system, Kapil
and Gulab Singh, came in contact, as they were walking on
the road.  In the cross­examination by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, this witness has denied the suggestion
that Kapil was traveling in the vehicle as labourer.  Even, in
the   cross­examination   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
Insurance   Company,   he   has   denied   that   at   the   time   of
accident,   above   persons   were   traveling   in   the   offending
vehicle.  When the person, who was in the exclusive control
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

25 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
of   the   offending   vehicle,   has   denied   each   and   every
suggestion, which was put to him by the petitioners, as well
as,   the   Insurance   Company,   then,   his   version   qua   the
accident is liable to be taken into consideration to conclude
the manner, in which, the accident in question had taken
place.
45. At the cost of repetition, stand as taken by the
petitioners qua the fact that deceased Kapil was traveling in
the vehicle as labourer and sustained fatal injuries, is not
liable to be taken into consideration, as admittedly, none of
the petitioners had witnessed the accident in question.
46. So far as the evidence of RW­5, is  concerned,
admittedly, he has not seen the accident in question, as
such, his statement cannot be taken as gospel truth.   The
best evidence, which the Insurance Company can adduce to
prove its stand qua the fact that the persons, who had died
or sustained injuries were traveling in the offending vehicle
as   gratuitous   passengers,   is   the   injured   persons,   whose
MLCs have been produced by RW­5 as Ext. RW5/A to Ext.
RW5/I.   As none of the injured has been examined by the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

26 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
Insurance Company, in this case, as such, the Insurance
Company   has  miserably  failed  to   prove  the   fact   that   the
deceased   persons   were   traveling   in   the   offending   vehicle,
what to talk about their status as labourers or gratuitous
passengers.
47. Consequently,   the   contention   of   Insurance
Company   to   prove   the   fundamental   breach   of   insurance
policy is not liable to be taken into consideration and the
same is rejected, accordingly.
48. The award has also been assailed on the ground
that  sine qua non  for seeking the amount of compensation,
under Section 166 of M.V. Act, i.e. rash and negligent driving
of   the   offending   vehicle,   has   not   been   proved   by   the
petitioners is concerned, the factum of accident has not been
denied by respondents No. 1 and 2.   They have taken the
plea that due to the sudden failure of the braking system,
the driver could not control the offending vehicle and the
same rolled down into the gorge, causing the injuries to the
persons, who were on the road, including deceased persons.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

27 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
49. As   stated   above,   the   only   person,   who   was
present at the time of accident, is driver of the offending
vehicle.  Once, the Insurance Company itself has produced
the   report   under   Section   173   Cr.P.C.,   arising   out   of   the
accident   in   question,   then,   the   Insurance   Company   is
estopped from taking the defence that accident in question
had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the offending vehicle.  In the report, under Section
173   Cr.P.C.,   Ext.   R­X,   allegations   of   rash   and   negligent
driving   against   the   driver   of   the   offending   vehicle   have
specifically been mentioned.  The submission of charge­sheet
against respondent No. 2 is prima facie proof of rash and
negligent driving against respondent No. 2. 
50. In view of the discussion made above, this Court
has   no   hesitation   to   hold   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has
rightly   fastened   the   liability   to   pay   the   amount   of
compensation on the Insurance Company.  The said findings
do not require any interference.
51. The   Insurance   Company   has   also   assailed   the
awards, on the ground of quantum of compensation.   As
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

28 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
such, both the cases are now taken separately in order to
ascertain as to whether the amount of compensation, which
has   been   awarded   to   the   petitioners,   falls   within   the
definition of ‘just compensation’.
52. It   is   no   longer   res   integra   that   the
Court/Tribunal, while deciding the claim petitions, should
make an endeavor that the amount of compensation, to be
awarded, falls within the definition of ‘just compensation’.
53. 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.  
54. In order to ascertain the fact whether the ‘just
compensation’ has been awarded or not, firstly FAO (MVA)
No. 439 of 2017, is being taken up for adjudicating the said
issue.
FAO No. 439 of 2017:
55. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has
taken the income of deceased Kapil, during his life time as
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

29 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
Rs. 6,000/­ per month.  The accident in question had taken
place in the year 2012 and to the considered opinion of this
Court, the said findings do not require any interference, by
this Court. However, the learned Tribunal has wrongly given
50% increase in the earnings of Kapil, on account of his
future prospects, had he not been expired due to the fatal
injuries sustained in the accident in question. 
56. In   view   of   the   the   decision   in   “ National
Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others,
(2017)   16   Supreme   Court   Cases   680 ”,   40%   amount   is
liable to be added, on account of future prospects.  Relevant
paragraphs 59 to 59.8 are reproduced, as under:­
“59 . In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to
record our conclusions:­
59.1. The two­Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have
been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench
as it was taking a different view than what has been
stated   in   Sarla   Verma,   a   judgment   by   a   coordinate
Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same
strength   cannot   take   a   contrary   view   than   what   has
been held by another coordinate Bench.
59.2.  As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of
time, the decision in Rajesh is not a binding precedent.
59.3 While determining the income, an addition of 50% of
actual   salary   to  the   income   of   the   deceased   towards
future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent
job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made.
The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

30 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was
between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should
be 15%.   Actual salary should be read as actual salary
less tax.
59.4.  In case the deceased was self­employed or on a
fixed   salary,   an   addition   of   40%   of   the   established
income should be the warrant where the deceased was
below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the
deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and
10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to
60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of
computation. The established income means the income
minus the tax component.
59.5.  For   determination   of   the   multiplicand,   the
deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals
and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of
Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore.
59.6. The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in
the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that
judgment.
59.7  The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
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.”
57. Thus,   40%   amount   is   liable   to   be   added,   on
account of future prospects, as deceased Kapil was working
in unorganized sector and his age has been proved as 19
years.   Thus, his contribution towards his family comes to
Rs. 6000 + 40% (2400) = Rs. 8400/­ per month.
58. Admittedly,   he   was   bachelor,   as   such   50%
amount,   from   his   income,   is   liable   to   be   deducted,   on
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

31 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
account of his personal expenses, had he been alive.  Thus,
deducting   50%   out   of   the   income   of   the   deceased,   on
account of his personal expenses, his contribution towards
his family, thus, comes to Rs. 8400/­ ­ Rs. 4200/­ = Rs.
4200/­ per month.
59. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier
of ‘18’, which is appropriate multiplier to be applied in the
present case, in view of the law laid down in “
Sarla Verma
”.
Vs   Delhi   Transport   Corportation,   2009   (6)   SCC   121
Thus, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 4200/­ x 12 x 18
= Rs. 9,07,200/­.
60. The   learned   Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by
granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ under funeral expenses, Rs.
50,000/­ each to petitioners No. 1 and 2, on account of loss
of love and affection.   The said findings are not sustainable
in the eyes of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution
Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay Sethi’s  case
(supra). 
61. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate
of  case (supra), the petitioners are also held
Pranay Sethi’s 
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

32 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/­; Rs.
15,000/­; and Rs. 40,000/­ respectively, under the heads:
‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’.
62. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in  
Magma   General   Insurance   Company   Limited   versus
reported   in
Nanu   Ram   alias   Chuhru   Ram   and   others,  
, all the petitioners are
(2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130
held   entitled   to   compensation   under   the   head   ‘loss   of
consortium’.   The 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
husband­wife   which   allows   compensation   to
the   surviving   spouse   for   loss   of   "company,
society, co­operation, affection, and aid of the
other in every conjugal relation”. 
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

33 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
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
world­over 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
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

34 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
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.”
63. Thus,  the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs. 9,07,200/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.2,00,000/­   (Rs.  
40,000/­ each)
3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 /­
________________________________________________________
     Total = Rs. 11,37,200/­.
     ________________________________________________________
64. The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to
grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 11,37,200/­.
65. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   the   rate   of
interest to the petitioners at the rate of 7.5% per annum,
which has rightly been awarded by the learned Tribunal.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

35 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
66. The amount of compensation is apportioned, as
under:­
Petitioner No. 1 :  30%;
Petitioner No. 2 :  40%; and 
Petitioners No. 3 to 5 :  Remaining 10% each.
67. Viewed   thus,   the   amount   of   compensation   is
liable   to   be   enhanced.     Consequently,   the   appeal   is
dismissed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 439
of   2017,   is   enhanced   from   Rs.   10,97,000/­   to   Rs.
11,37,200/­,   along   with   interest   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per
annum.     The   ultimate   liablity   to   pay   the   amount   of
compensation is on the Insurance Company, being insurer
of the offending vehicle. 
FAO No. 422 of 2017
68. The   learned   Tribunal   has   taken   the   monthly
earnings of deceased Gulab Singh, as Rs. 6000/­ per month,
which   does   not   require   any   interference.     However,   the
learned Tribunal has fallen into error by giving the addition
of 50%, on account of future prospects of Gulab Singh, had
he been alive.   In view of   Pranay Sethi’s   case (supra), the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

36 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
same is required to be made at the rate of 40%.  Thus, his
income   comes   to   Rs.   6000/­   +   40%   (Rs.   2400/­)   =   Rs.
8400/­.
69. Keeping   in   view   the   number   of   claimants,   the
learned   Tribunal   has   rightly   deducted   1/5th   amount,   on
account of personal expenses of Gulab Singh, had he been
alive.   Thus, his contribution comes to Rs. 8400/­ minus
1/5th (Rs. 1680/­) = Rs. 6,720/­ per month.
70. The age of deceased Gulab Singh was 38 years,
at the time of accident.   The learned Tribunal has applied
the multiplier of ‘15’, which is appropriate multiplier to be
applied in the present case, in view of the law laid down in
Sarla Verma   case   (supra).   Thus, the loss of dependency
comes to Rs. 6,720/­ x 12 x 15 = Rs. 12,09,600/­.
71. The   learned   Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by
granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/­ under funeral expenses, Rs.
1,00,000/­ each to all the children, on account of loss of love
and affection.  Apart from it, the learned Tribunal awarded
Rs. 1,00,000/­ as consortium to petitioner No. 1 and Rs.
50,000/­  to petitioner No. 7, on account of loss of love and
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

37 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
affection.   The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes
of law, in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Pranay Sethi’s  case (supra). 
72. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate
of  case (supra), the petitioners are also held
Pranay Sethi’s 
entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000/­; Rs.
15,000/­; and Rs. 40,000/­ respectively, under the heads:
‘loss of estate’, ‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’.
73. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in   Nanu   Ram   alias   Chuhru   Ram’s   case   (supra),   all   the
petitioners are held entitled to compensation under the head
‘loss of consortium’. 
74. Thus,  the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs. 12,09,600/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.2,80,000/­   (Rs.  
40,000/­ each)
3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 /­
_____________________________________________________
     Total = Rs. 15,19,600/­.
     ________________________________________________________
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

38 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
75. The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to
grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 15,19,600/­.
76. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   the   rate   of
interest to the petitioners at the rate of 7.5% per annum,
which has rightly been awarded by the learned Tribunal.
77. The amount of compensation is apportioned, as
under:­
Petitioner No. 1 :  40%;
Petitioner No. 2 to 7 :  Remaining 10% each.
78. Viewed   thus,   the   amount   of   compensation   is
liable to be  reduced.   Consequently, the appeal  is  partly
allowed and the amount of compensation in FAO No. 422 of
2017, is reduced from Rs. 19,71,000/­ to Rs. 15,19,600/­,
along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.   The
ultimate liablity to pay the amount of compensation is on
the   Insurance   Company,   being   insurer   of   the   offending
vehicle.
79. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
80. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS

39 2026:HHC:45841
High Court of H.P.
81. Record be sent back.
82.  Copy of the judgment, be placed on record, in the
connected appeal.  
                       (Virender Singh)
th
16  October, 2026  Judge 
(Pramod Kumar)
     
  
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:43 :::CIS