MOTI LAL vs RAM KUMAR

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

High Court of H.P.
1 2026:HHC:45840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
        FAO (MV) No. 502 of 2017
Reserved on : 09.09.2026
         Decided on : 16.10.2026
Uploaded on : 16.10.2026
Moti Lal           ...Appellant
Versus
Ram Kumar & Others            ...Respondents
  
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting?   Yes.
For the appellant:   Mr.   B.S.   Chauhan,   Senior
Advocate, with Ms. Aditi Rana,
Advocate. 
For the respondents:   Ms.   Tim   Saran,   Advocate,   for
respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr.   Deepak   Bhasin,   Senior
Advocate,   with   Mr.   Sambhav
Bhasin,   Advocate,   for
respondent No. 3.
 
Virender Singh, Judge
Appellant­Moti Lal has filed the present appeal,
under   Section   173   of   the   Motor   Vehicles   Act   (hereinafter
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
2 2026:HHC:45840
referred   to   as   ‘the   M.V.   Act’),   against   the   award   dated
22.11.2016,   passed   by   learned   Motor   Accident   Claims
Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, H.P.
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   learned   Tribunal’),   in   MAC
Petition No. 30 of 2011, titled as ‘Ram Kumar & Anr. Versus
Moti Lal & Anr.’. 
2. By   way   of   the   award,   dated   22.11.2016,   the
learned Tribunal has allowed the petition filed by respondents
No. 1 & 2 and awarded a sum of Rs. 12,16,400/­, along with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of
institution of the petition, till payment of the entire amount.
The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has
been fastened upon the present appellant­Moti Lal. 
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.
STAND   OF   THE   PETITIONERS   BEFORE   LEARNED
TRIBUNAL:
4. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeal,
before   this   Court,   as   borne   out   from   the   record,   may   be
summed up, as under:­
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
3 2026:HHC:45840
4.1 The petitioners have filed the claim petition under
Section 166 of the MV Act, seeking compensation on account
of death of Smt. Noryum Mani, wife of petitioner No. 1 and
mother of petitioner No. 2, in a road side accident, which
according to the petition, had taken place on 13.02.2011, at
about 9:30 pm, near Ralli Bridge on National Highway Shimla
to Reckong Peo, involving vehicle bearing No. HP25A­0725,
driven by Pradeep Kumar @ Sonu, who lost his life in the
accident,   owned   by   respondent   No.   1   and   insured   with
respondent   No.   2.     The   said   vehicle,   hereinafter   shall   be
referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’.
4.2 According to the petitioners, Smt. Noryum Mani,
with   Smt.   Rampati,   had   hired   the   offending   vehicle   for
transporting the goods i.e. Flower plants, and they were on
their   way   to   Bhawa   Nagar   to   Reckong   Peo.     When,   the
offending   vehicle   reached   near   Ralli   Bridge   on   National
Highway   Shimla   to   Reckong   Peo,   due   to   the   rash   and
negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, who
lost control over it, the offending vehicle went off the road and
fallen down about 100 feet down, in the river.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
4 2026:HHC:45840
4.3 The information regarding the accident was given
to the police of Police Station Reckong Peo/Kalpa, where FIR
No. 11/2011, dated 13.02.2011, under Sections 279, 337 and
304­A of IPC was registered.  Smt. Noryum Mani, at the time
of her death, was stated to be 29 years, working as Peon in
Himalayan   Public   School,   Reckong   Peo,   and   her   income/
contribution has been pleaded to be Rs. 12,500/­ per month.
4.4 By pleading their bright past and bleak future, the
petitioners have sought the amount of compensation, from
the respondents.
STAND   OF   THE   RESPONDENTS   BEFORE   LEARNED
TRIBUNAL:
5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been
contested by the respondents, by filing the reply.
5.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed his reply, by denying
the averments, as made in the petition, however, the factum
of accident and registration of FIR has been admitted.   The
allegations of rash and negligent driving against the driver of
the offending vehicle, has also been controverted, by pleading
that the accident took place due to sudden skidding of the
offending vehicle, while giving pass to other vehicle coming
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
5 2026:HHC:45840
from the opposite side.  As such, respondent No. 1 has prayed
that the claim petition may be dismissed.
5.2 In addition to this, a sudden mechanical defect,
having been occurred in the offending vehicle, has also been
pleaded as a defence to the allegations of rash and negligent
driving against the driver of the offending vehicle, who has
also  died  in the  accident  in  question.   Driver  was  son  of
respondent No. 1. 
5.3 Respondent   No.   2­Insurance   Company,   filed   its
separate   reply,   by   taking   preliminary   objections   that   the
claim petition is not maintainable, the offending vehicle was
being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy, the offending vehicle was registered
as   Light   Commercial   Vehicle   and   insured   under   Goods
Carrying Commercial Vehicle Policy Package and the same
was   found   carrying   passengers,   and   as   such,   there   is
fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance
policy, the driver of the offending vheicle was not having a
valid and effective driving license, the claim petition has been
filed in collusion with respondent No. 1, and the deceased
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
6 2026:HHC:45840
was   traveling   in   the   offending   vehicle   as   an
unauthorized/gratuitous passenger.
5.4 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have
mainly been denied for want of knowledge.
5.5 Thus,   a   prayer   has   been   made   to   dismiss   the
petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal, on 29.06.2011:­
1.  Whether late Smt. Noryum Mani died on account of the
injuries sustained  by her due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle No. HP25A­0725, being driven by its
driver (since deceased), as alleged? OPP
2. If   issue   No.   1   is   proved   to   what   amount   of
compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from
whom? OPP
3. Whether   the   offending   vehicle   was   being   plied   in
violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy, as alleged? OPR­2
4. Whether   the   driver   of   the   offending   vehicle   (since
deceased)   was   not   possessing   a   valid   and   effective
driving license? OPR­2
5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the vehicle at
the relevant time as gratuitous passenger? OPR­2
6. Relief. 
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
7 2026:HHC:45840
7. Thereafter, the parties to the   lis   were directed to
adduce evidence.
8. After   the   closure   of   evidence   and   hearing   the
learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   parties,   the   learned
Tribunal, has allowed the petition, as referred to above, by
fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation,
upon respondent No. 1­Moti Lal, who is now before this Court
in an appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act.
STAND OF THE OWNER BEFORE THIS COURT:
9. The   owner   has   assailed   the   award,   before   this
court mainly on the ground that the learned Tribunal has
wrongly held that deceased was not traveling in the vehicle,
as owner of the goods, whereas RW­2, who was in the vehicle,
specifically stated in her statement that the vehicle was hired
by her and the deceased, for the transportation of flower pots,
purchased   by   them.     Her   statement,   according   to   the
appellant­owner, has  wrongly been ignored by the learned
Tribunal, on the ground, that she has not got recorded this
statement in the FIR Ext. PW1/B.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
8 2026:HHC:45840
10. The   learned   Tribunal   has   wrongly   held   the
deceased as a gratuitous passenger and the statement on
oath made by RW­2, has wrongly been ignored by the learned
Tribunal.  The award has also been challenged on the ground
that the learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the husband
of the deceased did not support his own case and recorded
some contradictions.   However, according to the appellant,
learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that PW­1 was
not present at the spot and from his deposition, deceased
cannot be declared as gratuitous passenger.
11. According to the appellant, learned Tribunal has
wrongly not accepted the stand of RW­1 that the vehicle was
hired by Rampati and deceased, as this fact was disclosed to
appellant, when he talked to his son.
12. The quantum of award, has also been assailed on
the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the
income of deceased as Rs. 5,350/­ per month, whereas the
same should have been Rs. 3,000/­ per month.
13. On the basis of above facts, Sh. B.S. Chauhan,
Senior Advocate, with Ms. Aditi Rana, Advocate, appearing for
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
9 2026:HHC:45840
the   appellant,   has   prayed   that   the   appeal   may   kindly   be
accepted  and  the   award   passed  by  learned  Tribunal,  may
kindly be modified by fastening the liability to pay the amount
of compensation, upon the Insurance Company.
14. Per contra, Ms. Tim Saran, Advocate appearing for
the claimants, has supported the award and prayed that the
amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced, so that the
same could fall within the definition of ‘just compensation’.
15. Mr.   Deepak   Bhasin,   Senior   Advocate,   with   Mr.
Sambhav   Bhasin,   Advocate,   appearing   for   the   Insurance
Company, has supported the award and prayed that learned
Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration, the oral, as well
as, the documentary evidence, in the present case and rightly
held that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle
as gratuitous passenger and according to him, the violation of
fundamental   conditions   of   the   insurance   policy   has   been
proved, in the present case.   As such, the learned Tribunal
has   rightly   fastened   the   liability   to   pay   the   amount   of
compensation, along with upto date interest, upon the owner
of the offending vehicle.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
10 2026:HHC:45840
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
16. The   appeal   is   the   continuation   of   the   original
proceedings and in order to decide the contentions as raised
in the appeal, it would be just and appropriate to discuss the
oral, as well as, the documentary evidence, led by the parties
to the petition, before the learned Tribunal.
17. After framing of the issues, petitioner No. 1 Ram
Kumar appeared in the witness box as PW­1 and filed his
duly sworn affidavit, which is based upon the assertions, as
made in the claim petition.  He has produced the copy of FIR
Ext.   PW1/B,   copy   of   postmortem   report   Ext.   PW1/C   and
salary certificate of the deceased Mark P­1.
18. In the cross­examination, he has admitted that he
has not witnessed the accident in question.  According to this
witness, when, the accident had taken place, it was winter
season.  On that day, there was heavy rain and road was wet.
He also admitted that road was narrow, at the relevant place.
Construction work was going on, on the road.  This witness is
not aware about the reason, how the accident in question had
taken place.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
11 2026:HHC:45840
19. In   the   cross­examination   by   the   Insurance
Company, he has deposed that on the fateful day, his wife
was returning from Solan and she had gone there two days
prior to the accident.   She reached at Bhavanagar by bus.
The vehicle was hired by Rampati and he was also not aware
about the place, where the plants were purchased by his wife.
The plants were of Rampati and she had to bring them to her
house at Dakhoo.
20. To rebut this evidence, respondent No. 1 Moti Lal,
appeared in the witness box and filed the affidavit, in which,
he has taken the defence that on 13.02.2011, Rampati and
Noryum Mani, hired the offending vehicle and both of them
had loaded the flower pots and plants from Bhavanagar to
transport   the   same   to   Dakhoo,   Reckong   Peo.     This
information was given to him by his son Pradeep, who was
driving the offending vehicle.  On the next day, this witness
received the information regarding the accident, upon which,
he had reached at the spot.  Dead body of his son has not yet
been traced.  Driving licence was in the pocket of his son, as
such,   the   same   could   not   be   traced.     However,   he   has
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
12 2026:HHC:45840
produced the copy of driving licence.  His son was having a
valid driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, which was
issued from Nagaland.  On verification, the said licence was
found to be valid.  According to him, the accident in question
had taken place due to sudden mechanical defect, which had
occurred in the offending vehicle.
21. In the cross­examination by the learned counsel
for the Insurance Company, he has again reiterated that the
driving licence was issued by Licencing Authority Nagaland.
However, his son never remained at Nagaland, but voluntarily
stated that he used to go to Nagaland, as his relatives reside
there.  This witness has seen the driving licence of his son.
Like   petitioner   No.   1,   he   was   not   present   at   the   time   of
accident, however, he has talked with his son, at 8:00 pm.
Flower   pots   were   loaded   from   Sungra,   however,   he   has
feigned ignorance as to how many flower pots were loaded.
Initially, he stated that he does not know who was owner of
those flower pots, but, later on, he came to know that those
flower pots were of some ladies.   He has denied that those
ladies never hired the vehicle for carrying any goods.  He has
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
13 2026:HHC:45840
admitted that he had filled the claim form and submitted to
the   Insurance   Company,   in   which,   columns   of   goods   and
nature thereof were left blank, but voluntarily stated that he
has not filled the claim form and the same was filled by the
officials of Insurance Company.  In the cross­examination, he
admitted   that   when   he   visited   the   spot,   goods   were   lying
there.
22. Ram Pati, who was traveling with the deceased, in
the offending vehicle, has been examined as RW­2.  According
to her affidavit, which, she had filed in her examination­in­
chief, she has deposed that on 13.02.2011, she, along with
Noryum Mani, had hired the offending vehicle at Bhavanagar.
Both of them had loaded the flower pots and plants.  The fare
of the vehicle was fixed as Rs. 1,500/­.  However, on the way,
vehicle met with an accident.
23. In   the   cross­examination,   this   witness   has
deposed  that  on  the   day  of  accident,  she   had  reached   at
Bhavanagar at about 2:30 pm.  They had purchased 30 flower
pots.   Some flower pots were having plants and some were
empty.  The pots were of cement.  Rate of pots was Rs. 180/­
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
14 2026:HHC:45840
per pot.  Rs. 3,000/­ were paid to the shopkeeper, however,
she   could   not   disclose   about   the   exact   amount   paid   by
Noryum Mani.  The FIR, in the present case, was lodged on
her statement.  She, after going through the FIR Ext. PW1/B,
has stated that there is no reference of carrying of flower pots
in   the   said   vehicle,   but   voluntarily   stated   that   she   had
informed the police.  Within half an hour, they had reached at
Ralli Bridge, where the accident in question, had taken place.
24. On   the   other   hand,   Insurance   Company   has
examined Sh. Ramesh Chander Negi, Branch Manager NIC
Rampur,  who  has  deposed  that   vehicle  was  a  commercial
vehicle and a goods carrier and passengers were not allowed
to   travel   in   the   vehicle.     The   deceased   was   traveling   as
gratuitous passenger.  She was not carrying any goods in the
offending vehicle.   When the owner submitted the form, he
has not mentioned that the goods were being carried in the
vehicle.  OD claim submitted by the owner was declined.  This
witness   was   not   present   at   the   spot.     According   to   this
witness, three persons carrying goods could have traveled in
the vehicle.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
15 2026:HHC:45840
25. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned,
Ext. PW1/B is the copy of FIR, Ext. PW1/C is the copy of
postmortem report, Mark P­1 is the salary certificate, Ext.
RW1/B is the copy of Registration Certificate, Ext. RW1/C is
the insurance policy, Ext. RW1/D is the fitness certificate,
Mark A is copy of license, Ext. R­A is insurance policy and
Ext.   RW3/A   is   the   insurance   policy   with   terms   and
conditions.
26. This is the entire evidence, led on record, by the
parties to the lis.
27. Learned   Tribunal,   in   the   present   case,   has
fastened   the   liability   to   pay   the   amount   of   compensation,
upon the owner of the offending vehicle, by holding that the
deceased was a gratuitous passenger.  While holding so, the
learned Tribunal has relied upon the FIR Ext. PW1/B, which
was lodged on the statement of Rampati.  The material fact,
with   regard   to   the   hiring   of   the   vehicle,   has   not   been
mentioned in it.  In this background, now this Court would
proceed further to determine as to whether the said findings,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
16 2026:HHC:45840
so recorded by the learned Tribunal, are sustainable in the
eyes of law, or need interference, by this Court. 
28. Admittedly,   the   offending   vehicle   is   a   Light
Commercial Vehicle.   As per the copy of R.C. Ext. RW1/B,
seatting capacity of the same is 2+1.  The onus to prove the
fundamental   breach   of   the   terms   and   conditions   of   the
insurance   policy   is   upon   the   Insurance   Company.
Admittedly, the FIR in question was lodged by RW­2 Rampati.
The evidence of a witness is to be considered as a whole, and
not in piece­meal.  This witness has admitted that the FIR in
question has been lodged by her.  In the examination­in­chief,
this witness has not deposed anything about lodging of the
FIR, but categorically stated that she and deceased Noryum
Mani had hired the offending vehicle to transport the flower
pots and thereafter, flower pots and plants were loaded, after
fixing the fare of the vehicle as Rs. 1,500/­.   In the cross­
examination, whatsoever, deposed by this witness, has been
deposed in a term, which includes Noryum Mani, as she has
deposed that “We purchased 30 flower pots in all”.   In her
examination­in­chief, she has also deposed that they have
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
17 2026:HHC:45840
loaded the flower pots and plants in the said vehicle and on
the way to Reckong Peo, the vehicle met with an accident and
rolled down in the river.
29. Admittedly,   this   witness   has   neither   mentioned
about the purchase of the flower pots and plants, nor she has
deposed   about   hiring   of   the   offending   vehicle,   in   the   FIR
lodged by her, but, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that
RW­2 had a miraculous escape, in the accident, as the other
two occupants of the vehicle i.e. driver and Noryum Mani, had
lost their lives.  She was in trauma and it cannot be expected
from a layman, who is having low legal literacy, to depose
each and every fact in detail, while lodging the FIR.
30. The   primary   purpose   of   FIR   is   to   put   criminal
machinery   into   motion.     Moreover,   the   statement   under
Section   154   Cr.P.C.,   was   admittedly   not   made   on   oath,
whereas, this witness, on oath, has categorically stated that
the offending vehicle was hired by her and Noryum Mani, for
transporting the flower pots and plants and after fixing the
fare as Rs. 1,500/­.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
18 2026:HHC:45840
31. Now, two different versions were before the learned
Tribunal, one version, as made in the FIR under Section 154
Cr.P.C. and other version made, on oath, by the witness, who
was   also   cross­examined   at   length   by   learned   counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company.  In such situation, the
version on oath given by RW­2, who admittedly was present
at the spot, is only to be accepted.
32. While holding so, the view of this Court is being
guided  by   the  decision   of  Hon’ble   Supreme  Court   in  case
National   Insurance   Company   Ltd.   Versus
Chamundeshwari & Ors., (2021) 18 Supreme Court Cases
596 .  Relevant paragraph 8 of the judgment, are reproduced,
as under:­
“8. It is clear from the evidence on record of PW–1 as well
as PW–3 that the Eicher van which was going in front of the
car, has taken a sudden right turn without giving any signal
or indicator. The evidence of PW–1 & PW–3 is categorical and
in absence of any rebuttal evidence by examining the driver
of   Eicher   van,   the   High   Court   has   rightly   held   that   the
accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of
Eicher van. It is to be noted that PW–1 herself travelled in the
very   car   and   PW–3,   who   has   given   statement   before   the
police,   was   examined   as   eye–witness.   In   view   of   such
evidence on record, there is no reason to give weightage to
the contents of the First Information Report. If any evidence
before the Tribunal runs contrary to the contents in the First
Information Report, the evidence which is recorded before the
Tribunal has to be given weightage over the contents of the
First Information Report. ” 
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
19 2026:HHC:45840
33. The   driver   of   the   offending   vehicle   was   not   a
stranger, but son of respondent No. 1.  The petitioners have
specifically pleaded in the claim petition that the vehicle was
hired by Rampati and Noryum Mani, to transport flower pots
and plants in para 10 of the claim petition, and in reply to the
said para, respondent No. 1, has admitted said para 10 of the
claim petition. 
34. Once, the factual position has been admitted by
respondent No.  1, who  is  supposed  to  admit   or  deny  the
same,   then,   the   learned   Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by
ignoring   the   said   admission,   as   despite   lengthy   cross­
examination   by   the   counsel   representing   the   Insurance
Company, nothing material could be elicited from respondent
No.   1,   when   he   appeared   in   the   witness   box,   as   RW­1.
Rather, in his cross­examination, he has given the source of
information to him regarding hiring of the vehicle, as his son.
35. Even   otherwise,   RW­1   in   his   cross­examination
used the term ladies, who had hired the vehicle.   In such
situation, the petitioners have probablized the stand that the
vehicle in question was hired by Rampati and Noryum Mani,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
20 2026:HHC:45840
and as such, they were traveling in the vehicle as owner of
goods.
36. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of
the view that the owner has been able to satisfy the judicial
conscience of this Court, that the learned Tribunal has fallen
into   error   to   fasten   the   liability   to   pay   the   compensation
amount,   upon   the   owner,   whereas   ultimate   liability   is
required to be fastened upon Insurance Company, to pay the
amount   of   compensation,   along   with   up   to   date   interest.
Ordered accordingly.
37. It is no longer res integra that the endeavour of
the Court/Tribunal is to grant ‘just compensation’.  In order
to adjudge the above legislative intent, now, this Court would
consider   the   fact,   whether   the   amount   of   compensation,
which has been awarded to the petitioners, falls within the
definition of ‘just compensation’ or not.
38. The   learned   Tribunal   has   taken   the   age   of   the
deceased as 29 years, on the basis of the age, as mentioned in
the postmortem report Ext. PW1/C.   In the absence of any
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
21 2026:HHC:45840
evidence contrary to the said fact, the learned Tribunal has
rightly taken the age as 29 years.
39. The   learned   Tribunal   has   taken   the   income/
contribution of deceased towards her family as Rs. 8,000/­
per   month.     In   the   absence   of   any   challenge   to   the   said
amount, this Court is of the view that the said amount would
be   taken   as   contribution,   on   account   of   the   multifarious
activities,   being   done   by   the   female,   in   the   household.
However, the learned Tribunal has not given any addition, on
account of the future prospects, had Smt. Noryum Mani, been
alive.
40. 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
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
22 2026:HHC:45840
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
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.”
41. Thus,   40%   amount   is   liable   to   be   added,   on
account   of   future   prospects,   as   Smt.   Noryum   Mani   was
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
23 2026:HHC:45840
working in unorganized sector and her age at the relevant
time,   was   29   years.     Thus,   her   contribution   towards   her
family comes to Rs. 8000 + 40% (3200) = Rs. 11,200/­ per
month.
42. The learned Tribunal has rightly deducted 1/3rd
amount, from her income, towards her personal expenses,
had she been alive.  Thus, deducting 1/3rd out of the income
of the deceased, on account of her personal expenses, her
contribution to her family, thus, comes to Rs. 11,200/­ ­ Rs.
3,733/­ = Rs. 7,467/­ per month.
43. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of
‘17’,   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. 7,467/­ x 12 x 17 = Rs.
15,23,268/­.
44. The   learned   Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by
awarding   a   sum   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­   on   account   of   loss   of
consortium and Rs. 25,000/­ on account of funeral expenses.
The said findings are not sustainable in the eyes of law, in
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
24 2026:HHC:45840
view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in  Pranay Sethi’s  case (supra). 
45. 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/­, under the heads: ‘loss of estate’,
‘funeral expenses’, and ‘loss of consortium’ respectively.
46. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court,
in   Magma   General   Insurance   Company   Limited   versus
Nanu   Ram   alias   Chuhru   Ram   and   others,   reported   in
(2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130 , all the petitioners are
held   entitled   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
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
25 2026:HHC:45840
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”. 
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
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
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
26 2026:HHC:45840
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.”
47. Thus,  the   entitlement   of   the   petitioners,   is
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs. 15,23,268/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs.80,000/­ (Rs. 
40,000/­ each)
3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000 /­
_________________________________________________________
     Total = Rs. 16,33,268/­.
     ________________________________________________________
48. The entitlement of the petitioners with a view to
grant just compensation, thus, comes to Rs. 16,33,268/­.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
27 2026:HHC:45840
49. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate
of interest to the petitioners at the rate of 7.5% per annum,
which needs no interference by this Court. 
50. No other point has been urged or argued.
51. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal
of   the   appellant­owner   is   allowed   and   the   Insurance
Company, being insurer of the offending vehicle, is held liable
to   indemnify   the   owner.     The   amount   of   compensation   is
enhanced   from   Rs.   12,16,400/­   to   Rs.   16,33,268/­,   with
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing
of the petition, till the deposit of award amount.   The amount
of   compensation   shall   be   apportioned   amongst   the
petitioners, in the following manner:­
Petitioner No. 1 :  40%
Petitioner No. 2 :  remaining 60%. 
52. The amount, falling in the share of petitioner No.
2, being minor, on its deposit, is ordered to be invested in the
shape of FDR with some nationalized Bank, co­terminus with
the majority of petitioner No. 2. 
53. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
28 2026:HHC:45840
54. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
55. Record be sent back.
                       (Virender Singh)
Judge 
th
16  October, 2026
(Pramod Kumar)
        
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 12:31:45 :::CIS