RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD vs SUBHASH AND OTHERS

1 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO   (MV)  No.192  of  2016
with FAO (MV) Nos.244 of
2016, 55, 56, 123 & 374 of
2018
Reserved on  :   24.09.2026
  Decided on        :   31.10.2026
Uploaded on  :   31.10.2026
1. FAO (MV) No.192 of 2016
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. …….Appellant
Versus 
Jitender Kumar & Others ...Respondents
2. FAO (MV) No.244 of 2016
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. …….Appellant
Versus 
Beli Ram & Others ...Respondents
3. FAO (MV) No.55 of 2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. …….Appellant
Versus 
Master Subhash & Others ...Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

2 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
4. FAO (MV) No.56 of 2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. …….Appellant
Versus 
Master Subhash & Others ...Respondents
5. FAO (MV) No.123 of 2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. …….Appellant
Versus 
Master Subhash & Others ...Respondents
6. FAO (MV) No.374 of 2018
Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. …….Appellant
Versus 
Master Subhash & Others ...Respondents
 
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?  Yes.
1. FAO (MV) No.192 of 2016
For the appellant  : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents  : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate for
respondents No.1 to 3.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

3 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate for
respondents No. 4 to 7.
2.      FAO (MV) No.244 of 2016
For the appellant  : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents  : Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondent No.1.
Mr. Rajesh Verma, Advocate, for
respondents No. 2 to 5.
3. FAO (MV) No.55 of 2018
For the appellant  : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents  : Mr. Rajesh Verma & Mr. Vinod
Chauhan, Advocates.
4. FAO (MV) No.56 of 2018
For the appellant  : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents  : Mr. Rajesh Verma & Mr. Vinod
Chauhan, Advocates.
5. FAO (MV) No.123 of 2018
For the appellant  : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents  : Mr. Rajesh Verma & Mr. Vinod
Chauhan, Advocates.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

4 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
6. FAO (MV) No.374 of 2018
For the appellant  : Mr. Jagdish Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents  : Mr. Rajesh Verma & Mr. Vinod
Chauhan, Advocates.
Virender Singh, Judge  
The above­titled appeals are being disposed of by
the common judgment, as all these appeals have arisen out
of the accident, which, according to the admitted case of the
parties, had taken place on 05.09.2011, involving vehicle
number HP16­3382 (hereinafter  referred as ‘the offending
vehicle’).
2. The Insurance Company has filed the aforesaid
appeals,   under   Section   173   of   Motor   Vehicles   Act
(hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act) against the awards,
passed   by   the   Court   of   learned   Motor   Accident   Claims
Tribunal­I, Sirmaur District at Nahan (hereinafter referred to
as   'the   Tribunal'),   whereby,   while   allowing   the   claim
petitions,   the   liability   to   pay   the   compensation   has   been
fastened upon the Insurance Company.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

5 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
3. In   order   to   decide   the   aforesaid   appeals,   this
Court would first decide   FAO (MV) No.192 of 2016,  being
taken as lead case.
FAO (MV) No. 192 of 2016
4. This appeal has arisen out of the award dated
05.06.2015 passed by the learned Tribunal in MACT Petition
No. 140­MAC/2 of 2013/12, titled as Shukri Devi and others
versus Kamlesh and others.
5. By   way   of   the   award   dated   05.06.2015,   the
learned Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition filed by
the   petitioners­claimants,   has   awarded   a   sum   of
Rs.2,90,000/­, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the petition, till realization of the whole
amount,   along   with   interest,   by   fastening   the   ultimate
liability   to   pay   the   amount   upon   the   present   appellant/
Insurance Company. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

6 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
6. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the  lis ,
are hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which,
they were referred to, by the learned Tribunal. 
7. Brief facts, leading to  the filing of the present
appeal, before this Court, as borne out, from the record, may
be summed up, as under: ­
7.1. Petitioners Shukri Devi and others, have filed the
claim   petition,   under   Section   166   of   Motor   Vehicles   Act,
seeking   the   amount   of   compensation   on   death   of   Paniya
Ram   husband   of   Smt.   Shukri   Devi,   who,   during   the
pendency of the appeal, before this Court, expired and her
name was ordered to be deleted. Petitioners No.2 to 4 are the
grandsons of the deceased.
7.2. The claim petition has been filed by them on the
ground that Shri Paniya Ram, on 05.09.2011, hired vehicle
No.HP16­3382 (hereinafter referred to offending vehicle) to
transport the goods, i.e., bed, bed clothes, utensils, TV from
his village to his out house (Dogri) in village Dhalyog.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

7 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
7.3. It is the further case of the petitioners that when,
the offending vehicle reached just ahead of village Dhaali at
place   Daleha   towards   village   Shilla­baag,   then,   grand
daughter­in­law of Paniya Ram, her newborn baby, along
with Smt. Gurdei and her children, namely Preeti, Master
Hans Raj, Master Subhash, were moving on foot from village
Dhaali to Ayurvedic Dispensary Shilla­bag.
7.4. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the
same in a rash and negligent manner, as such, he could not
control the speed of the offending vehicle and crushed them
except Master Subhash.  Thereafter, the vehicle rolled down
in the rivulet, due to which, the occupants, including driver
of the offending vehicle, also expired.  
7.5. Since, the accident, in question, has solely been
attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the offending vehicle, as such, the matter was reported to
the police of Police Station Rajgarh, where FIR No.81 dated
5.9.2011, under Sections 279, 304­A IPC was registered.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

8 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
7.6. According the petitioners, Shri Paniya Ram was
66 year of age, at the time of his death.  According to them,
he   was   agriculturist,   by   profession   and   was   earning
Rs.5,000/­, per month. 
7.7. The petitioners have pleaded about their bright
past and bleak future.  Since, the accident, in question, has
solely been attributed to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending vehicle, as such, the claimants
have   sought   the   amount   of   compensation   from   the
respondents. 
8. When put to notice, the legal representatives of
the driver­cum­owner i.e., respondents No.1 to 4, have filed
their reply, by admitting the accident.  However, according to
them,   the   same   had   taken   place   due   to   the   sudden
mechanical failure of the offending vehicle. They have also
termed the FIR, registered against the driver, as false.  
8.1. Other contents have also been denied, but, it has
been admitted that Paniya Ram hired the offending vehicle,
for carrying the goods from village Bagger Panoti to Dhaliog.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

9 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
One Om Prakash was working, as labourer in the offending
vehicle.     According   to   them,   the   cause   of   death   of   the
pedestrians   is   the   sudden   mechanical   failure,   in   the
offending vehicle.  
9. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle, i.e.,
respondent No.5 has filed the separate reply, by taking the
preliminary objections that the offending vehicle was goods
vehicle,   in   which,   the   deceased   was   travelling,   as
unauthorized   passenger,   as   such,   his   risk   has   not   been
covered,   under   the   insurance   policy.     Nine   unauthorized
passengers were travelling, in the offending vehicle, which is
stated to be the violation of the terms and conditions of the
Insurance   Policy.     The   insurer   has   also   taken   the   other
preliminary objections that the driver of the offending vehicle
was not having a valid and effective driving licence and that
the   claim   petition   has   been   filed   by   the   petitioner,   in
collusion with respondent No.1 to 4. 
10. On merit, the contents of the claim petition have
mainly been denied for want of knowledge.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

10 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
11. From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated
17.12.2013:­ 
1.  Whether the deceased suffered fatal injuries on
account   of   rash   and   negligent   driving   of   the
Mahindra Pick­up bearing No.HP­16­3382 on the
part of driver of the vehicle 5.9.2011, near village
Dhalli, Tehsil Rajgarh, as alleged? OPP
2.  If   issue   No.1   above   is   proved,   whether   the
petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to
what amount and from whom? OPP
3.  Whether   the   deceased   was   travelling   in   the
offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger,
as alleged?           OPR­5
4.  Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence at
the time of accident, as alleged?        
OPR­5
5.  Whether the vehicle in question was being plied
in contravention of the terms and conditions of
the insurance policy, as alleged?        
OPR­5
6. Whether   this   petition   has   been   filed   by   the
petitioners in collusion with respondents No.1 to
4, as alleged?              OPR­5
7.  Relief.
12. Thereafter, the parties were directed to adduce
evidence.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

11 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
13. After   the   closure   of   the   evidence   and   after
hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the
learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, as referred
to   above,   by   fastening   the   ultimate   liability   to   pay   the
amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company.
14. Aggrieved   from   the   said   award,   Insurance
Company has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of
M.V. Act, assailing the award, mainly, on the ground that
the learned Tribunal has wrongly decided issue No.3, against
the   Insurance   Company,   as,   according   to   the   Insurance
Company,   deceased,   along   with   the   other   persons,   was
travelling as gratuitous passenger, in the offending vehicle,
and it has not been proved that the offending vehicle was
hired by him, in the presence of someone and on the basis of
the   bald   statement   of   PW­3,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the
offending vehicle was hired by deceased. 
15. According to the Insurance Company, evidence of
respondent No.1 is not liable to be taken into consideration,
as, she was not present at the spot. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

12 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
16. It is the further case of the Insurance Company
that the petitioners could not probabilize the fact that the
offending vehicle was ever hired by Shri Paniya Ram. Highly
relying upon the contents of the FIR, it has been contended
that the contents of the same prove the fact that all the
persons   were   travelling   in   the   offending   vehicle,   which,
admittedly, was a goods carrying vehicle.  The driver of the
offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving
licence.   Although,   efforts   were   made   by   the   Insurance
Company to get the same verified, but, due to the short time,
granted   by   the   learned   Tribunal,   the   genuineness   of   the
same   could   not   be   verified.   The   seating   capacity   of   the
offending   vehicle   is   stated   to   be   ‘3’   including   the   driver,
whereas, seven persons had expired and two were injured.
Highlighting the fact that the violation of the fundamental
condition of the Insurance Policy has duly been proved, in
this case, as the driver of the offending vehicle, was having
two driving licences, according to the appellant­Insurance
Company, there is violation of Section 6 of the M.V. Act.   
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

13 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
17. The   quantum   of   compensation   has   also   been
assailed   on   the   ground   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has
wrongly taken the income of Shri Paniya Ram as Rs.4,000/­
per month, during his lifetime, as there is nothing, on the
record to prove the same.  Highlighting the fact that in the
year 2011, minimum wages were not more than Rs.3,000/­
per month, as such, according to the appellant­Insurance
Company,   the   learned   Tribunal   ought   to   have   taken   the
income of Paniya Ram as Rs.3,000/­ per month. 
18. The   award   has   further   been   assailed   on   the
ground   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   wrongly   deducted
th
1/4   amount, on account of personal expenses, whereas,
rd
the same should be 1/ 3 . 
19.  On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr.   Jagdish
Thakur, Advocate, appearing for the Insurance Company has
prayed   that   the   appeal   may   kindly   be   accepted,   by
exonerating   the   Insurance   Company   from   paying   the
amount   of   compensation,   by   reducing   the   quantum   of
compensation. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

14 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
20. Per   contra   Mr.   Rajesh   Verma,   Advocate,
appearing   for   the   legal   representatives   of   the   driver,   has
argued that the appeal sans merit and the same may kindly
be dismissed. 
21. Mr.  Anil   Chauhan,  Advocate  appearing  for   the
petitioners   has   also   supported   the   award   passed   by   the
learned   Tribunal,   but,   prayed   that   the   amount   of
compensation, may kindly be enhanced, so that the same
could fall with the definition of ‘just compensation’. 
22. In order to decide the questions, as raised, in the
present appeal, it would be just and appropriate for this
Court to discuss the oral, as well as, documentary evidence,
adduced by the parties, before the learned Tribunal. 
23. Factum of accident has not been disputed in the
present case. 
24. The   petitioners   have   examined   PW­1,   Shri
Vikram Singh, Junior Assistant, who has brought the record
relating to the postmortem of Shri Paniya Ram.  
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

15 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
25. Petitioner   No.4,   Beli   Ram,   who   is   grandson   of
Paniya Ram, appeared in the witness­box, as witness PW­2
and  filed  his  affidavit  Ex.PW­2/A.    According  to  him, on
05.09.2011,  Paniya Ram   had  hired  the  offending   vehicle,
which was being owned and driven, by Davinder Singh, to
transport  the   domestic   articles,   from  his  house  i.e.,   bed,
utensils   to   Dogari   at   Baggar   Panoti,   in   village   Dhalyog,
which is situated at a distance of about 30 km.  Om Prakash
was employed, in the said vehicle, for loading and unloading
the articles.
26. This witness has further deposed that when the
said vehicle, along with the articles, reached just ahead of
village Dhaali, then the pedestrians, including the wife of
this witness, his small daughter, Smt. Gurdei and her two
children,   namely;   Preeti   and   Hans   Raj,   were   hit   by   the
offending vehicle, and thereafter, the vehicle rolled down in
the Gorge. In the said accident, Subhash had survived and
Hansraj   was   injured,   but,   later   on,   he   expired   in   PGI,
Chandigarh.  
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

16 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
27. This witness has deposed that the accident, in
question, had taken place due to the rash and negligent
driving of the driver.  Paniya Ram was about 66 years of age,
and he was earning Rs.5,000/­ per month. He has proved
the   Legal   Heirs   Certificate   EX.PW­2/B.   Petitioner   No.2
Jitender, is stated to be 22 years and he is unemployed.  Age
of petitioner No.3 is stated to be 27 years. He is stated to be
agriculturist by profession. This witness was not present on
the spot, as such, he could not spell out, as to how the
accident, in question, had taken place. He has denied that
Paniya Ram was more than 75 years of age, at the time of
his death. 
28. This witness has denied that he was not earning
anything. This witness is working in CRPF.  At the time of
accident,   he   was   posted   at   Bhopal,   and   he   received   the
information   telephonically   regarding   the   accident,   in
question. In the accident, his grandfather Paniya Ram, his
wife Premlata, and daughter Samriti had expired. Apart from
their domestic help, Gurdei and her husband Om Prakash
also expired. Both the sons of Om Prakash had also expired.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

17 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Total seven persons expired in the accident, in question and
two sustained injuries. 
29. PW­3 Sohan Singh, filed his affidavit Ex.PW­3/A,
in which, he has supported the case of PW­2. According to
him, on 05.09.2011, he was on his way to village Dhaali
Dibbar   from   Shilla­bag   on   foot,   and   at   about   2:00   p.m.,
when, he reached near Daleha curve, then, he noticed that
the offending vehicle came there, being driven by its driver,
at a very high speed, in a rash and negligent manner.  He
has crushed two women and children, thereafter, the said
vehicle had rolled down in the gorge. Only one child had
survived who sustained minor injuries. According to him,
the accident, in question had taken place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 
30. According to this witness, the offending vehicle
was driven by Devinder Singh, at the time of accident, who
has also expired. His vehicle had rolled down 700­800 meter
deep gorge.  Rest, he has denied all the suggestions.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

18 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
31. In the cross­examination, by the learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company, he has voluntarily,
stated that the police have inquired from him regarding the
accident. He has deposed that two ladies and children were
walking on the road. 
32. PW­4,   Sarita   Kashyap,   Pradhan   of   Gram
Panchayat Dibber Dhali, deposed that on 05.09.2011, one
Sohan Singh, son of Shiv Ram, telephonically informed him
about the accident, in question, which had taken place at
Dhaleha,   upon   which,   she   has   informed   the   police.   This
witness   has   proved   the   FIR   Ex.   PW­4/A.   She   was   not
present, at the spot, as such, she could not spell out, how
the   accident,   in   question,   had   taken   place.     After   the
accident, she had gone to the spot, and a number of persons
had gathered there. 
33. To   rebut   this   evidence,   respondent   No.1,
Kamlesh,   appeared   as   RW­1.     According   to   her,   on
05.09.2011, her husband, while transporting the goods, in
the offending vehicle, when, reached near Dhaleha, then,
due to some technical defect, which had occurred, in the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

19 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
offending vehicle, the accident had taken place, and vehicle
rolled down in the gorge. In the said accident, her husband,
along with the person, sitting with him, and some pedestrian
and children had died.
34. In the cross examination, this witness has stated
that  she,   apart  from   her   affidavit   in   examination­in­chief
Ex.RW­1/A, has produced the copy of the driving license of
her husband Devinder Singh Ex.RW­1/B, photocopy of the
Insurance Policy Ex.RW­1/C, photocopy of RC Ex. RW­1/D,
Tax payment receipt Ex.RW­1/E.
35. In the cross­examination, by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company, she has denied that
nine   persons   were   traveling   in   the   vehicle.     Voluntarily
stated that only two were there, and other persons were on
the road. Total seven persons lost their lives. But she has
admitted   that   the   vehicle   was   registered,   as   light   goods
vehicle. Her husband had purchased the vehicle, in the year
2010. She has denied that the original license, copy of which
is   Ex.RW­1/B,   has   been   procured   in   order   to   avoid   the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

20 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
liability to pay the amount of compensation, is not with this
witness. 
36. RW­2, Surender Mehta deposed that he has seen
Devinder,   driving   the   vehicle.   He   was   an   expert   driver.
Devinder was also working with him, and he had hired the
services of Devinder, after satisfying himself, about the fact
that he knows, how to drive the vehicle. 
37. This witness is not a summoned witness, and he
is deposing, at the instance of respondents No.1 to 4. He has
admitted  that a person could obtain  driving licence from
where he is residing.  
38. Respondent   No.1,   in   the   present   case,   has
examined Sumit Kumar, Retainer in Legal Department, as
RW­3.  According to him, the offending vehicle was insured
as   goods   carrying   vehicle,   with   the   Insurance   Company,
which was valid w.e.f. 27.07.2011 to 26.07.2012.   He has
proved   the   insurance   policy   as   Ex.RW­3/A.   The   seating
capacity   of   the   offending   vehicle   was   ‘3’,   whereas   the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

21 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner,
qua payment of the compensation, more than three persons.
39. This witness has submitted the O.D. claim for the
vehicle in question was submitted and the driving license,
which was provided, by the claimants, is Ex.RW­3/B. The
driving   license   Ex.RW­3/B   was   got   verified   from   District
Transport   Officer,   S.A.S.   Nagar,   Mohali,   from   where,   the
same   was   found   to   be   forged.   He   has   produced   the
verification report Ex.RW­3/C. According to this witness, it
has been also found, in the investigation, that, at the time of
accident, nine persons were travelling in the vehicle, out of
which, seven had expired and two sustained injuries.  Claim
was repudiated, as it has been found that, at the time of
accident, owner was himself driving the vehicle, who was not
having a valid driving license.  Paniya Ram was travelling, in
the offending vehicle, as unauthorized passenger. 
40. According to this witness, Own Damages Claim
was   submitted,   which   was   repudiated.   This   witness   has
admitted that he was not present, at the time of accident. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

22 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
41. This is the entire oral evidence.
42. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned,
copy   of   the   postmortem   report   is   Ex.PW1/A,   legal   heirs
certificate is Ex.PW2/B, copy of the FIR is Ex.PW4/A, driving
license   of   Devinder   is   Ex.   RW­1/B,   insurance   policy   is
Ex.RW­1/C, copy of RC, Ex.RW­1/D, Road Tax Certificate
Ex.PW­1/E, copy of insurance policy RW3/A, driving license
of Devinder Ex.RW3/B, verification report regarding driving
licenses No.1087/NDL/2011, dated 6.7.2011 is Ex. RW­3/C.
43. Mr. Jagdish Thakur Advocate, appearing for the
Insurance   Company,   has   vehemently   argued   that   the
learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability, to pay
the amount of compensation, upon the Insurance Company,
whereas,   it   has   been   proved   that   the   deceased/injured
persons   were   travelling   in   the   offending   vehicle,   as
gratuitous passengers, as, the offending vehicle is a goods
carrier vehicle, which was being used as passengers carrying
vehicle, in violation of the fundamental breach of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

23 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
44. It has also been argued that driver­owner of the
offending vehicle was not having the effective driving license,
as two driving licenses have been produced on the record,
which is in violation of Section 6 of the M.V. Act.
45. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has
been made to allow the petition.
46. First of all, coming to the stand as taken by the
Insurance Company, qua the fact that the deceased persons,
in the present case, were travelling in the offending vehicle
as a gratuitous passengers, and as such, the company is not
liable to indemnify the owner.
47. It is the stand of the petitioners that only Shri
Paniya Ram was travelling in the offending vehicle, being the
owner of the goods, as, he had hired the offending vehicle for
transporting   the   household   goods   from   his   village   to   his
outhouse (Dogri) and one Om Prakash was working as a
labourer,   for   loading   and   unloading   the   goods,   in   the
offending vehicle.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

24 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
48. It   is   also   the   case   of   the   petitioners   that   the
granddaughter­in­law   of   Paniya   Ram,   her   newborn   baby,
along with Smt. Gurdei and her children, namely Kumari
Preeti, Master Hansraj, and Master Subhash, were moving,
on foot, from their house to Ayurvedic Dispensary Sheela
Bagh. They were crushed/hit by the offending vehicle due to
the rash and negligent driving of its driver, and thereafter,
the offending vehicle fell into a gorge, resulting in the death
of   the   occupants,   including   the   driver.   Out   of   the
pedestrians, only Master Subhash could survive.
49. In view of the rival contentions, now, this Court
would proceed further to ascertain whether the petitioners
have proved/parabolized the fact that Shri Paniya Ram was
travelling in the offending vehicle, as the owner of the goods,
whereas, Shri Om Prakash was working as a labourer, and
the other persons, namely Premlata, her minor daughter,
Gurdei,   and   her   children   were   pedestrians,   who   were
crushed underneath the offending vehicle.
50. The   FIR,   in   question,   in   this   case,   has   been
proved as Ex.PW­4/A.  The FIR was lodged, on the statement
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

25 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
of one Smt. Sarita Kashyap, wife of Naresh Kumar, the then
Pradhan, Gram Panchayat Dibber. Said witness has been
examined as PW­4. However, the evidence of this witness is
not liable to be taken into consideration, as, she was not
present, at the spot, at the time of accident; as such, her
statement is hit by Section 60 of the Evidence Act (Section of
55 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam).  Section 60 of the
Evidence Act, is reproduced, as under:­
Oral
60.   Oral   evidence   must   be   direct.  
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;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. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

26 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
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.
51. Similarly, Kamlesh (Respondent No.1), wife of the
driver, was also not present at the spot. RW­3 Sumit Kumar
was also not present, at the spot.  As such, their statements,
qua the manner, in which, the accident, in question, had
taken place, are not liable to be considered.
52. In such a situation, the only evidence, which can
be taken into consideration, is the statement of PW­3 Sohan
Singh.     This   witness,   in   his   affidavit,   filed   in   the
examination­in­chief,   had   categorically   stated   that   on
05.09.2011, he was moving from Sheela Bag to his home at
Dhali Dibber, on foot.  At about 2:00 PM, when, he reached
near Daleha curve, he noticed the offending vehicle, being
driven by its driver, at a very high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner, which, came there and hit/crushed two
ladies and their children, and thereafter, the vehicle rolled
down into the gorge. In the accident, only one child could
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

27 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
survive. Thereafter, this witness gave information about the
accident to the Pradhan, Gram Panchayat, over the phone.
53. Even in the cross­examination by the Insurance
Company, this witness again voluntarily deposed that two
ladies and the children were moving on foot.
54. In such a situation, when, there is no evidence,
adduced by the respondents, to prove the fact that Premlata,
Gurdei, and their children were not moving on foot, and were
crushed to death by the offending vehicle, which thereafter
rolled down into the gorge, resulting in the death of Paniya
Ram, who, as per the stand of the petitioners, was travelling
in   the   offending   vehicle,   as   the   owner   of   the   goods,   the
statement on oath made by PW­3 Sohan Singh can be said
to be determinative in nature. It probabilizes the fact that
the accident, in question, took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle; Shri
Paniya Ram was travelling in the offending vehicle, as the
owner of the goods; and the other deceased persons were
pedestrians.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

28 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
55. Merely, because PW­3 was not associated by the
police during the investigation, does not   make him to be
disqualified   as   a   competent   witness   to   depose   about   the
accident.   If   the   evidence   of   PW­3   is   evaluated   on   the
touchstone   of   preponderance   of   probabilities,   then,   the
Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that Shri
Paniya Ram was a gratuitous/unauthorized passenger, in
the offending vehicle, and has also failed to prove that the
other deceased persons were travelling inside the vehicle.
Rather,   it   stands   proved   that   the   deceased,   namely;
Premlata, Gurdei, and their children, were pedestrians, who
unfortunately were hit/crushed, by the offending vehicle.
56. Moreover, the seating capacity of the offending
vehicle, as per the RC, Ex.PW­1/D, is ‘3’. In such situation,
both   Paniya   Ram   and   Om   Prakash   stand   proved   to   be
travelling, in the offending vehicle, as the owner of the goods
and   the   person   engaged   to   load/unload   the   articles,
respectively. Hence, neither of them can be said to be an
unauthorized passenger.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

29 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
57. In   view   of   the   discussion   made   above,   the
submissions   of   the   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the
Insurance   Company   that   the   liability   has   wrongly   been
fastened upon the Insurance Company, cannot be accepted
and are liable to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.
58. Another point raised by the Insurance Company
is that the driver of the offending vehicle, Davinder Singh
(owner­cum­driver),   was   not   holding   a   valid   and   effective
driving license.  During the proceedings, two driving licenses
were produced on the record; one produced by respondent
No.1 (widow of Davinder Singh) as Ex.RW­1/B, and another
allegedly produced by respondents No.1 to 4, while lodging
their own damages claim, which was proved by RW­3 as
Ex.RW­3/B.
59. When, this document was exhibited, the learned
counsel for respondents No.1 to 4 raised objection.   From
this fact, it has been argued by learned counsel appearing
for the Insurance Company that the deceased was having
two driving licenses, which are in violation of the provisions
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

30 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
of Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the M.V. Act.  Sections 3, 4 and 6 of
the M.V. Act, are reproduced as under:­
.—(1)   No
3.   Necessity   for   driving   licence
person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public
place unless he holds an effective driving licence
issued   to   him   authorising   him   to   drive   the
vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport
vehicle [other than 3 [a motor cab or motor cycle]
hired   for   his   own   use   or   rented   under   any
scheme made under sub­section (2) of section 75]
unless his driving licence specifically entitles him
so to do.
(2) The conditions subject to which sub­section (1)
shall not apply to a person receiving instructions
in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may
be prescribed by the Central Government.
4. Age limit in connection with driving of
.—(1) No person under the age of
motor vehicles
eighteen years shall drive a motor vehicle in any
public place: Provided that 1 [a motor cycle with
engine capacity not exceeding 50cc] out gear may
be  driven in a public  place by a person after
attaining the age of sixteen years. (2) Subject to
the provisions of section 18, no person under the
age   of   twenty   years   shall   drive   a   transport
vehicle   in   any   public   place.   (3)   No   learner’s
licence or driving licence shall be issued to any
person to drive a vehicle of the class to which he
has made an application unless he is eligible to
drive that class of vehicle under this section.
6.   Restrictions   on   the   holding   of   driving
licences .—(1) No person shall, while he holds
any driving licence for the time being in force,
hold any other driving licence except a learner’s
licence or a driving licence issued in accordance
with the provisions of section 18 or a document
authorising, in accordance with the rules made
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

31 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
under section 139, the person specified therein to
drive a motor vehicle.
(2) No holder of a driving licence or a learner’s
licence shall permit it to be used by any other
person.
(3)   Nothing   in   this   section   shall   prevent   a
licensing   authority   having   the   jurisdiction
referred to in sub­section (1) of section 9 from 13
adding   to   the   classes   of   vehicles   which   the
driving licence authorises the holder to drive.
60. Bare perusal of the above provisions of the law
reveals that the legislature has not provided any penalty or
disqualification for possessing two driving licenses.
61. Furthermore, the verification report Ex.RW­3/C,
regarding   the   driving   license   Ex.RW­3/B   has   not   been
proved in accordance with law, as it was merely exhibited by
an official of the Insurance Company, during examination­
in­chief without examining the officer, who issued the report,
i.e., the District Transport Officer, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
62. Perusal   of   the   record   shows   that   after   the
petitioners'   evidence   was   closed   on   18.07.2014,   the
respondents   were   granted   as   many   as   11   effective
opportunities to lead evidence. Thereafter, on 10.04.2015, an
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

32 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
application under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC to record evidence
from   the   D.T.O.,   Motor   Vehicle   Department,   Wokha
(Nagaland) was moved, which was allowed on 10.04.2015.
The fee of the Local Commissioner has not been deposited by
the Insurance Company, as such, evidence of the Insurance
Company was closed on 18.05.2015.   In such situation, it
does not lie in the mouth of the Insurance Company to say
that opportunity to lead the evidence has not been  provided
to them to prove the driving licence.
63. So   far   as   the   driving   licence   Ex.RW­3/B   is
concerned, this is a document, which was produced by PW­
1, in her examination­in­chief, on 04.06.2014.   Thereafter,
no efforts have been made to summon the District Transport
Officer, SAS Nagar Mohali, to prove the fact that the said
licence is not a valid licence, issued by the said authority.
64. Onus   to   prove   the   violation   of   the   terms   and
conditions of the Insurance Policy is upon the Insurance
Company   and   the   Insurance   Company   cannot   take   the
benefit of its own wrong, as number of effective opportunities
have been given to the Insurance Company by the learned
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

33 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Tribunal and thereafter, application for appointment of Local
Commissioner was also allowed.  But, the said order has not
been complied with and the learned Tribunal has rightly
closed the evidence of the Insurance Company.
65. Therefore,   this   Court   is   of   the   view   that   the
Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that the
driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and
effective driving license, and the Insurance Company cannot
take advantage of its own failure.
66. Now,   this   Court   would   proceed   further   to
ascertain the fact as to whether the amount of compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal falls within the definition of
‘just compensation’, as it is the legislative intent that the
endeavor   of   the   Court/Tribunal   is   to   grant   the   ‘ just
compensation’ .  
67. The Tribunal has taken the age of the deceased,
Shri   Paniya   Ram,   as   66   years,   which   is   based   on   the
postmortem   report   Ex.PW­1/A.     The   said   findings   being
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

34 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
based   upon   the   documentary   evidence,   require   no
interference by this Court.
68. So far as the earnings of Shri Paniya Ram are
concerned,   the   learned   Tribunal   has   taken   his   monthly
income as Rs.4,000/­, which requires no interference, by
this Court.  Since, the deceased, at the time of his death was
66 years of age, as such, no addition is required to be given
towards future prospects.  The said findings of the learned
Tribunal also require no interference by this Court.
69. The   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   Sarla   Verma
versus
(Smt)   and   others     Delhi   Transport   Corporation
, has
and another, (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121
mandated that out of the total amount of the earnings of the
deceased, some amount is required to be deducted, had the
person,   whose   LRs   have   approached   the   Court   for
compensation, been alive.  Relevant paragraphs 30 and 31 of
the judgment, are reproduced, as under:­ 
30. Though in some cases the deduction to be
made towards personal  and  living expenses is
calculated on the basis of units indicated in Trilok
Chandra,   the   general   practice   is   to   apply
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

35 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
standardized   deductions.   Having   considered
several subsequent decisions of this court, we are
of the view that where the deceased was married,
the   deduction   towards   personal   and   living
expenses   of   the   deceased,   should   be   one­third
(1/3rd) where the number of dependent family
members is 2 to 3, one­fourth (1/4th) where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6,
and   one­fifth   (1/5th)   where   the   number   of
dependent family members exceed six.
31. Where the deceased was a bachelor and the
claimants are the parents, the deduction follows a
different   principle.   In   regard   to   bachelors,
normally, 50% is deducted as personal and living
expenses, because it is assumed that a bachelor
would   tend   to   spend   more   on   himself.   Even
otherwise,   there   is   also   the   possibility   of   his
getting married in a short time, in which event the
contribution to the parent/s and siblings is likely
to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence
to the contrary, the father is likely to have his
own   income   and   will   not   be   considered   as   a
dependant   and   the   mother   alone   will   be
considered   as   a   dependent.   In   the   absence   of
evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will
not be considered as dependents, because they
will   either   be   independent   and   earning,   or
married, or be dependant on the father.
70. As   such,   keeping   in   view   the   number   of
th
dependents,   1/4   amount,   on   account   of   his   personal
expenses, is required to be deducted, had he been alive.
Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.3,000/­ (Rs.4,000/­
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

36 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
minus   Rs.1,000/­).     The   said   findings   of   the   learned
Tribunal require no interference by this Court.
71. Learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of ‘5’,
which   is   the   appropriate   multiplier.     Thus,   the   loss   of
contribution comes to Rs.3,000/­x12 x 5 = Rs.1,80,000/­.
72. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   a   sum   of
Rs.50,000/­ on account of loss of consortium to petitioner
No.1, a sum of Rs.50,000/­, on account of love and affection
and Rs.10,000/­ towards ‘funeral expenses’.
73. The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes
of   law,   as   the   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court,   in  
National
Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC
680 , has held as under:­  
59. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed
to record our conclusions:­
(i) 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.
(ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in
Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

37 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
point   of   time,   the   decision   in   Rajesh   is   not   a
binding precedent.
(iii) 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 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.
(iv) 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.
(v)   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.
(vi)   The   selection   of   multiplier   shall   be   as
indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with
paragraph 42 of that judgment.
(vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis
for applying the multiplier.
(viii) 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.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

38 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
60.   The   reference   is   answered   accordingly.
Matters be placed before the appropriate Bench.
74. As such, in view of the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme   Court   in   Pranay   Sethi ’s   case   supra,   the
petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/­, under the head
‘loss   of   estate’,   Rs.40,000/­,   under   the   head   ‘loss   of
consortium’   and   Rs.15,000/­,   under   the   head   ‘funeral
expenses’.
75. However,   Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   Magma
General Insurance Company Limited versus Nanu Ram
,   has
@   Chuhru   Ram   and   others,   (2018)   18   SCC   130
mandated that each claimant is entitled to the amount of
compensation under the head ‘loss of consortium’.  Relevant
paragraphs 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
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

39 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
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, co­peration,
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
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
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

40 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
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.
76. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs.1,80,000/­
2. Loss of consortium     =  Rs.1,20,000/­
(Rs.40,000 x 3)
3. Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/­                    
________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs.3,30,000/­.
     ________________________________________________________
77. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the
said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

41 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
78. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.
The   awarded   amount   is   enhanced   from   Rs.2,90,000/­   to
Rs.3,30,000/­, with interest @ 7.5% per annum.  The award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.
Since, original petitioner No. 1­Shukri Devi, wife
of deceased­Paniya Ram, has expired, during the pendency
of   the   lis,   the   amount   of   compensation   is   apportioned
equally among all the three petitioners.
FAO No. 244 of 2016
79. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance
 
Company against the award dated 05.06.2015, passed by
the  learned Tribunal,  in  Claim  Petition  No.138­MAC/2 of
2013/12,   titled   as   ‘Beli   Ram   versus   Kamlesh   &   Others’,
whereby, a sum of Rs.7,58,000/­, along with interest, at the
rate of 7.5% per annum, has been awarded to the petitioner­
claimant,   from   the   date   of   filing   of   the   petition,   till   the
realization thereof.  The ultimate liability to pay the amount
of   compensation   has   been   fastened   upon   the   Insurance
Company.  
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

42 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
80. The   said   claim   petition   has   been   filed   by   the
petitioner, being husband of Prem Lata, who, as per the
claim petition, expired on 05.09.2011, in the accident, in
question. 
81. According   to   the   petitioner,   Prem   Lata   was   a
homemaker, as well as, tailor by profession.   As such, she
was earning /contributing Rs.7,000/­ per month.
82. Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Ms. Prem
Lata, as 23 years, on the basis of postmortem report Ex.PW­
1/A.  The said findings, being based upon the documentary
evidence, require no interference by this Court.
83. As regards, the contribution towards her family
by   Ms.   Prem   Lata,   the   learned   Tribunal,   has   taken   her
contribution/earnings as Rs.3,000/­ per month.   The said
amount, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be the
value of the multifarious activities done by a homemaker,
that too, round the clock, towards her family.  The Hon’ble
Supreme Court, while considering its decision in  
Kirti &
Others versus Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, 2021 (1)
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

43 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
, has held in  
ACJ 1 Shishu Pal @ Shish Ram & Others
reported in   that
versus Surjeet & Others,  2026 INSC 634,
the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be
taken as Rs.30,000/­ per month.  Relevant paragraphs 15 to
20, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under :­ 
Quantifying The Contribution­of a Nation Builder
15. In usual circumstances this Court would not
have ventured further than taking note of the fact
that the incident and judgment in Lata Wadhwa
(supra) was contemporaneous to the unfortunate
accident in this case and as such compensation
could   be   calculated   using   the   Rs.3000/­   per
month   metric   applied   therein   however,   in   our
considered view that would not be justified. It
has   to   be   observed   that   to   measure   the
contributions of a homemaker and mother as in
this case in strictly monetary terms is a task of
considerable difficulty for each and every aspect
of   the   day,   month   and   year   of   such   a
homemaker’s   family   members   is   informed,
shaped   by   her   sometimes   acknowledged,   but
most often unacknowledged or taken for granted,
efforts. If compensation is to be calculated in the
present day while accounting for the egregious
delay, to do so in terms that were frozen on the
day   of   the   death   of   the   deceased   would   be
grossly   undervaluing   the   silent   strength   of
homemakers.
16.   That   being   said,   even   when   it   comes   to
computation   for   damages   under   non­pecuniary
heads, the loss still does require the recognition
of   such   heads   before   compensation   can   be
awarded. The first of them being the loss of the
homemaker’s dexterous ability to manage all the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

44 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
chores   of   the   household.   Granted,   that   in   the
increasingly modern urban centres of the country
it may not be the case that a homemaker stands
in front of the gas stove bright and early in the
morning or late at night or even that she walks
around, slouched, running the broom throughout
the house, but, the fact of the matter is that in
smaller cities, towns and villages, even today,
such tasks assumedly and invariably fall on the
homemaker,   without   as   much   as   a   second
thought. The second head pertain to the children
of the house. They have lost their mother, the
source   of   never­ending   love,   comfort   and
affection, the person who they could run to with
all their problems, questions and concerns and
heartbreaks.   She   is   also   their   first   point   of
contact with the ways of the world, silently and
subtly   teaching   them   skills   of   survival,
perseverance and excellence shaping them into
well   rounded   human   beings   capable   of   being
functioning   contributors   to   the   economy   of   the
nation. This, in our view, is somewhat different
from   emotional   support   or   dependence   for
primary skills necessary for everyday functioning
that   are   imbibed   by   the   children   from   their
mother.   This   has   a   distinctly   economic   angle
while   also   being   partly   an   emotional   aspect
perfectly fitting into the non­categorizable roles
played by homemaker. How does one calculate
this? The third is equally troubling. A husband
has, no longer, the support of his life partner,
someone he depends on entirely to run smoothly,
an   entire   part   of   his   life,   his   home,   family,
children, relatives. Even in conservative settings
where   patriarchy   looms   large,   the   sense   of
dependency that obtains, if taken away, greatly
challenges the man for he is now directionless
and suddenly responsible for a lot more than he
is used to. When the efforts of the homemaker
towards the husband and children are taken on
the whole it cannot be disputed that although her
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

45 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
labour be at emotional or physical is within the
four walls of the home, its impact is much wider.
In enabling the direct contribution today of their
husbands and tomorrow of their children, they
are the building blocks for the nation’s road to
holistic progress.[See: Kalukutty v. P.M. John12,
Bhuvaneswari   v.   Mani13]   We   may   also   2023
SCC   OnLine   Ker   964   2020   SCC   OnLine   Mad
2163 observe that in a recent order of this Court
in   Arvind Kumar Pandey v. Girish Pandey , also
made similar observations to the following effect:
“7.   It   goes   without   saying   that   the   role   of   a
homemaker is as important as that of a family
member whose income is tangible as a source of
livelihood for the family. The activities performed
by a homemaker, if counted one by one, there
will hardly be any doubt that the contribution of
a homemaker is of a high order and invaluable.
In fact, it is difficult to assess such a contribution
in monetary terms.” 
Any   computation   made   as   a   result   of
injury suffered or death, should be aware of this
larger role and not be myopic in its view.
The loss of a homemaker however is not
limited to husband and children. It also directly
impacts   the   women’s   own   parents   who   have
been deprived of the love and company of their
child, who have lost the support and comfort of
this   person   and   are   left   alone   with   this
boundless grief. Still further, the loss is acutely
felt by her in­laws who are more often than not
members of the same household and therefore
are dependent on the love, labour and dedication
of this person, for food for medicines and doctor’s
visit   or   for   even   the   regular   company   over   a
morning tea. Strict arithmetic calculation does not
lend its services to any of these scenarios.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

46 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
17.   It   is   settled   law   by   virtue   of   National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi , that in all
cases   that   have   resulted   in   death,   loss   of
consortium is to be paid to the claimants at the
rate   of   Rs.40,000/­   per  dependant   along   with
10%  increase   on  the   said   amount  every  three
years,   so   in   2026   the   compensation   awarded
under this  head  is  Rs.48,400/­. This  we  may
note is irrespective of whether the deceased is a
male/female/child/retired/working or whatever
else.   We   are   of   the   considered   view,   in   such
situations the computation of compensation upon
the   death   of   a   homemaker   suffers   from   an
inherent (2025) 2 SCC 145 (2017) 16 SCC 680
disadvantage. The amount awarded under the
same is over and above what is calculated on the
basis of the earnings/salaries/pension/notional
income   for   certain   categories   of   claimants.   In
view of the fact that there is no standard income
on   the   basis   of   which   compensation   can   be
calculated and a figure is taken for the purposes
of calculation on guesswork, the true worth of the
homemaker is missed out, in as much as it is
amenable to calculation in monetary terms.
18.   Future   prospects   when   calculated   on   the
basis of  the above  judgment  in   Lata Wadhwa
(supra)   would   also   be   calculated   on   the
comparative lower notional income (Rs.3000/­per
month) given that, both the fire incident and the
accident forming the basis of this appeal are from
the year 2001.
19. When such conservative figures are used to
build up compensation, the amount arrived at is
paltry, and not even close, as much as monetary
terms   can   be,   to   the   loss   endured   by   the
claimants.   Notional   income   is   intended   to
approximate the economic value of in the case of
homemaker,   services   rendered   by   them.
However, for whatever reason, judicial notice of
this issue is usually overly conservative, without
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

47 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
due acknowledgment of the fact that the role of
the homemaker is neither entirely economic nor
entirely non­economic and blends the factors of
economy   with   emotional   and   managerial
contributions and as such fixed compensation in
terms of loss of consortium does not cover the
entire gamut of their contribution.
Loss Of Domestic Care: An Additional Head
20. It is in these circumstances, that we deem it
appropriate to direct that when a Motor Accidents
Claim Tribunal or the High Court or this Court is
concerned with or a case involving the death of a
homemaker, in order to  overcome  the  inherent
disadvantage accrued against the homemaker on
a   calculation   of   compensation   on   the   basis   of
conservatively   computed   notional   income   and
while   being   acutely   aware   of   the   dictum   in
Pranay Sethi  (supra) regarding loss of consortium
as also the disposition towards uniformity, that
for   the   three   major   heads   (the   homemaker’s
contribution towards  smooth functioning of  the
household,   the   loss   of   maternal   support   for
children and loss of spousal support/the support
and care of their child who is an adult, for the
parents   of   the   deceased)   discussed   in   the
foregoing   paragraphs,   a   composite   sum   of
Rs.30,000/­ shall be added under the head of
‘loss of domestic care’, provided that all three of
these   heads   are   met   in   the   given   case.   This
determination   shall   be   revised   by   10%,
cumulatively, every three years. It may be clearly
stated that this amount of Rs.30,000/­ i.e., loss
of domestic care is to be taken as a ‘stand­ in’
(basic   minimum   monthly   income)   for   monthly
income   in   those   cases   where   the   homemaker
does not have an input into the house, in strictly
conventional,   monetary   terms.   In   those   cases
where the homemaker is part of the workforce,
the component of loss of domestic care shall be in
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

48 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
addition to the monthly income as may be proved
before the Tribunal/Courts.”
84. Since, the accident, in question, had taken place
in the year 2011, this Court is of the view that in the light of
the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Shishu Pal ’s
case   (supra),   ends   of   justice   would   be   met,   if   the
contribution of Ms. Prem Lata, during her life time is taken,
as Rs.9,000/­, per month. 
85. The   learned   Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by
giving 50% increase, towards future prospects.   The said
findings require interference by this Court.
86. Admittedly,   Ms.   Prem   Lata   was   working   in
unorganized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in   Pranay Sethi ’s case supra, 40% increase is required to
be   given,   towards   future   prospects,   had   she   been   alive.
Thus,   by   adding   40%   of   her   monthly   income,   the   same
comes to Rs.12,600/­ (Rs.9,000/­ + Rs.3,600/­).
87. Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarla Verma’s  case
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

49 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
rd
supra, and keeping in view the number of dependent, 1/3
amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to
be deducted, had she been alive.  Thus, her monthly income
comes to Rs.8,400/­ (Rs.12,600/­ minus Rs.4,200/­).
88. Learned  Tribunal  has  applied the  multiplier  of
‘18’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the
present   case.     Thus,   the   loss   of   contribution   comes   to
Rs.8,400/­x12 x 18 = Rs.18,14,400/­.
89. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   a   sum   of
Rs.50,000/­, on account of loss of consortium, Rs.50,000/­,
on   account   of   love   and   affection,   and   Rs.10,000/­,   on
account of funeral expenses.  The said findings, as per the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in   Pranay Sethi ’s
case   supra,   require   interference   by   this   Court.     The
petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/­ under the head
‘loss   of   estate’,   Rs.40,000/­   under   the   head   ‘loss   of
consortium’   and   Rs.15,000/­   under   the   head   ‘funeral
expenses’.
90. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

50 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
1. Loss of income = Rs.18,14,400/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.40,000/­
3. Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/­                    
________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs.18,84,400/­.
     ________________________________________________________
91. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the
said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 
92. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed,
and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.7,58,000/­ to
Rs.18,84,400/­,   with   interest   @   7.5%   per   annum.     The
award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly.
FAO (MV) No.55 of 2018
93. The   instant   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the
Insurance Company against the award dated 03.10.2017,
passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 60­N/2
of   2012,   titled   as   ‘Master   Subhash   &   Another   versus
Kamlesh & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.4,80,000/­, along
with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per   annum,   has   been
awarded to the petitioners­claimants, from the date of filing
of the petition, till the final realization of the amount.  The
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

51 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has
been fastened upon the Insurance Company.
94. The   petitioners­claimants,   being   brother   and
grandmother   of   Master   Hans   Raj,   who   expired,   in   the
accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, have
filed the above noted petition, before the learned Tribunal,
seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/­.
95. As   per   the   claimants,   Master   Hans   Raj   had
sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at
the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 7 years.
He was a student. 
96. So far as the income of Master Hans Raj, during
his lifetime is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the
notional   income   of   Master   Hans   Raj   as   Rs.36,000/­   per
annum.  The said findings do not require any interference by
this Court.  
97. The   learned   Tribunal   has   calculated   the
pecuniary loss and not applied the multiplier, in the present
case.  The said findings are required to be interfered with.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

52 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
98. Keeping in view the age of Master Hans Raj, at
the time of his death, multiplier of ‘18’, is the appropriate
multiplier to be applied, in the present case.  Hence, the loss
of contribution comes to Rs.36,000/­ x 18 = Rs.6,48,000/­.
99. The   learned   Tribunal   has   not   awarded   any
amount under the conventional heads.  As such, as per the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in   Pranay Sethi ’s
case supra, the petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/­
under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/­ under the head
‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘funeral
expenses’.
100. In   view   of   the   law   laid   down   by   the   Hon’ble
Supreme Court in  ’s case supra, each claimant is
Nanu Ram
entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss
of consortium’. 
101. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs.6,48,000/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.80,000/­
(Rs.40,000/­ x 2)
3. Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/­
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

53 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/­                    
________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs.7,58,000/­.
     ________________________________________________________
102. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the
said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 
103. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed,
and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.4,80,000/­ to
Rs.7,58,000/­, with interest @ 7.5% per annum.  The award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.
FAO (MV) No. 56 of 2018
104. This appeal   has been preferred by the Insurance
Company against the award dated 04.10.2017, passed by
the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No.56­N/2 of 2012,
titled as ‘Master Subhash versus Smt. Kamlesh & Others’,
whereby, a sum of Rs. 9,41,000/­, along with interest, at the
rate   of   7.5%   per   annum,   has   been   awarded   to   the
petitioners­claimants, from the date of filing of the petition,
till the realization of the amount.   The ultimate liability to
pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon
the Insurance Company.  
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

54 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
105. The   said   claim   petition   has   been   filed   by   the
petitioner being, son and mother­in­law of deceased Gurdei,
who, as per the claim petition, expired on 05.09.2011, in the
accident, in question, involving the offending vehicle, being
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. 
106. According to the petitioners, Smt. Gurdei was a
homemaker, as well as, labourer by profession.  As such, her
income has been pleaded to be Rs.4,000/­ per month.
107. Learned   Tribunal   has   taken   the   age   of   Smt.
Gurdei, as 28 years.  The same age has been mentioned in
the postmortem report Ex.PW­1/B.  The said findings, being
based   upon   the   documentary   evidence,   require   no
interference by this Court.
108. As regards, the contribution towards her family
by   Smt.   Gurdei,   the   learned   Tribunal,   has   taken   her
contribution/earnings as Rs. 4,000/­ per month.   The said
amount, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be the
value of the multifarious activities done by a homemaker,
that too, round the clock, towards her family.  The Hon’ble
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

55 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Supreme Court, in  ‘s case supra has held that
Shishu Pal 
the value of the domestic care of a homemaker is liable to be
taken as Rs.30,000/­ per month.   Since, the accident, in
question, had taken place in the year 2011, this Court is of
the view that in the light of the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in  Shishu Pal ’s case (supra), ends of justice
would be met, if the contribution of Smt. Gurdei, during her
life time is taken, as Rs.9,000/­, per month. 
109. The   learned   Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by
giving 50% increase, towards future prospects.   The said
findings require interference by this Court.
110. Admittedly,   Smt.   Gurdei   was   working   in
unorganized sector and her age is below 40 years, as such,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in   ’s case supra, 40% increase is required to
Pranay Sethi
be   given,   towards   future   prospects,   had   she   been   alive.
Thus,   by   adding   40%   of   her   monthly   income,   the   same
comes to Rs.12,600/­ (Rs.9,000/­ + Rs.3,600/­).
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

56 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
111. Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarla Verma’s  case
rd
supra, and keeping in view the number of dependent, 1/3
amount, on account of her personal expenses, is required to
be deducted, had she been alive.  Thus, her monthly income
comes to Rs.8,400/­ (Rs.12,600/­ minus Rs.4,200/­).
112. Learned  Tribunal  has  applied the  multiplier  of
‘17’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the
present   case.     Thus,   the   loss   of   contribution   comes   to
Rs.8,400/­x12 x 17 = Rs.17,13,600/­.
113. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   a   sum   of
Rs.25,000/­,   on   account   of   funeral   expenses,   and
Rs.1,00,000/­, on account of love and affection to petitioner
No.1.  The said findings, as per the mandate of the Hon’ble
Supreme   Court   in   Pranay   Sethi ’s   case   supra,   require
interference by this Court.  The petitioners are held entitled
to Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/­
under the head ‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/­ under
the head ‘funeral expenses’.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

57 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
114. In   view   of   the   law   laid   down   by   the   Hon’ble
Supreme Court in  Nanu Ram ’s case supra, each claimant is
entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss
of consortium’. 
115. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs.17,13,600/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.80,000/­
(Rs.40,000/­ x 2)
3. Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/­                    
________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs.18,23,600/­.
     ________________________________________________________
116. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the
said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 
117. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed,
and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.9,41,000/­ to
Rs.18,23,600/­,   with   interest   @   7.5%   per   annum.     The
award passed by the learned MACT is modified accordingly.
FAO (MV) No.123 of 2018
118. The   instant   appeal has   been   preferred   by   the
 
Insurance Company against the award dated 05.10.2017,
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

58 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 58­N/2
of 2012, titled as ‘Master Subhash & Another versus Smt.
Kamlesh & Others’, whereby, a sum of Rs.4,80,000/­, along
with   interest,   at   the   rate   of   7.5%   per   annum,   has   been
awarded to the petitioners­claimants, from the date of filing
of the petition, till the final realization of the amount.  The
ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has
been fastened upon the Insurance Company.
119. The   petitioners­claimants,   being   brother   and
grandmother of Kumari Priti, who expired, in the accident, in
question, involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above
noted   petition,   before   the   learned   Tribunal,   seeking
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/­.
120.  As per the claimants, Kumari Priti had sustained
fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at the time of
death, her age has been pleaded to be 4 years.   The learned
Tribunal has also taken the age of Kumari Priti, at the time
of the accident, as 4 years.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

59 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
121. So far as the income of Kumari Priti, during his
lifetime is concerned, the learned Tribunal has taken the
notional income of Kumari Priti as Rs.36,000/­ per annum.
The said findings do not require any interference by this
Court.   The learned Tribunal has calculated the pecuniary
loss and not applied the multiplier, in the present case.  The
said findings are required to be interfered with.
122. Keeping in view the age of Kumari Priti, at the
time   of   her   death,   multiplier   of   ‘18’,   is   the   appropriate
multiplier to be applied, in the present case.  Hence, the loss
of contribution comes to Rs.36,000/­ x 18 = Rs.6,48,000/­.
123. The   learned   Tribunal   has   not   awarded   any
amount under the conventional heads.  As such, as per the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in   Pranay Sethi ’s
case supra, the petitioners are held entitled to Rs.15,000/­
under the head ‘loss of estate’, Rs.40,000/­ under the head
‘loss of consortium’ and Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘funeral
expenses’.
124. In   view   of   the   law   laid   down   by   the   Hon’ble
Supreme Court in  ’s case supra, each claimant is
Nanu Ram
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

60 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss
of consortium’. 
125. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs.6,48,000/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.80,000/­
(Rs.40,000/­ x 2)
3. Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/­                    
________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs.7,58,000/­.
     ________________________________________________________
126. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the
said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 
127. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed,
and the awarded amount is enhanced from Rs.4,80,000/­ to
Rs.7,58,000/­, with interest @ 7.5% per annum.  The award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.
FAO (MV) No.374 of 2018
128. The   instant   appeal   has   been   preferred   by   the
Insurance Company against the award dated 30.08.2017,
passed by the learned Tribunal, in MAC Petition No. 54­N/2
of 2012, titled as ‘Master Subhash & Another versus Smt.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

61 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Kamlesh   &   Others’,   whereby,   a   sum   of   Rs.10,93,000/­,
along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, has been
awarded to the petitioners­claimants, from the date of filing
of the petition, till the date of deposit of the amount.   The
ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has
been fastened upon the Insurance Company.
129. The petitioners­claimants, being son and mother
of Om Prakash, who expired, in the accident, in question,
involving the offending vehicle, have filed the above noted
petition, before the learned Tribunal, seeking compensation
of Rs.10,00,000/­.
130. As   per   the   claimants,   Shri   Om   Prakash   had
sustained fatal injuries, in the accident, in question, and at
the time of death, his age has been pleaded to be 30 years.
According to the claimants, he was a labourer.  His income
has been pleaded Rs.9,000/­ per month, from all sources. 
131. Learned Tribunal has taken the age of Shri Om
Prakash, as 31 years, on the basis of postmortem report
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

62 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
Ex.PW­1/B.     The   said   findings,   being   based   upon   the
documentary evidence, require no interference by this Court.
132. The learned Tribunal has taken the earnings of
Shri   Om   Prakash,   as   Rs.4,500/­   per   month.     The   said
findings do not require any interference by this Court.  
133. The   learned   Tribunal   has   given   50%   increase,
towards   future   prospects.     The   said   findings   require
interference by this Court, as per the mandate of Hon’ble
Supreme Court, in  ’s case supra.
Pranay Sethi
134. Admittedly,   Om   Prakash   was   working   in
unorganized sector and his age is below 40 years, as such,
in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in   Pranay Sethi ’s case supra, 40% increase is required to
be given, towards future prospects.  Thus, by adding 40% of
his   monthly   income,   the   same   comes   to   Rs.6,300/­
(Rs.4,500/­ + Rs.1,800/­).
135. Out of the said amount, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in  case
Sarla Verma’s 
rd
supra, and keeping in view the number of dependents, 1/3
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

63 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
amount, on account of his personal expenses, is required to
be deducted, had he been alive.  Thus, his monthly income
comes to Rs.4,200/­ (Rs.6,300/­ minus Rs.2,100/­).
136. Learned  Tribunal  has  applied the  multiplier  of
‘17’, which is the appropriate multiplier to be applied, in the
present   case.     Thus,   the   loss   of   contribution   comes   to
Rs.4,200/­x12 x 17 = Rs.8,56,800/­.
137. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   a   sum   of
Rs.25,000/­   on   account   of   funeral   expenses   and
Rs.1,00,000/­, to petitioner No.1, on account of love and
affection.     The   said   findings,   as   per   the   mandate   of   the
Hon’ble   Supreme   Court   in   Pranay   Sethi ’s   case   supra,
require interference by this Court.  The petitioners are held
entitled   to   Rs.15,000/­   under   the   head   ‘loss   of   estate’,
Rs.40,000/­   under   the   head   ‘loss   of   consortium’   and
Rs.15,000/­ under the head ‘funeral expenses’.
138.  In   view   of   the   law   laid   down   by   the   Hon’ble
Supreme Court in  Nanu Ram’ s   case  supra , each claimant is
entitled to the amount of compensation under the head ‘loss
of consortium’. 
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS

64 2026:HHC:47870
High Court of H.P.
139. Thus,   the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs.8,56,800/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.80,000/­
(Rs.40,000 x 2)
3. Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs.15,000/­                    
________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs.9,66,800/­.
     ________________________________________________________
140. So far as the rate of interest is concerned, the
said findings do not require any interference by this Court. 
141. Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is   partly
allowed,   and   the   awarded   amount   is   reduced   from
Rs.10,93,000/­ to Rs.9,66,800/­, with interest @ 7.5% per
annum.     The   award   passed   by   the   learned   Tribunal   is
modified accordingly.
142. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
143. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
144. Record be sent back.
                       (Virender Singh)
Judge 
st
( ps )
31  October, 2026     
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 15:31:37 :::CIS