UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD vs CHAMPA DEVI

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

High Court of H.P.
1 2026:HHC:47842
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
        FAO (MV) No. 379 of 2017
Reserved on : 13.10.2026
         Decided on : 31.10.2026
Uploaded on : 31.10.2026
United India Insurance Company Ltd.            ...Appellant
Versus
Champa Devi & Others            ...Respondents
  
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting?   Yes.
For the appellant:   Mr. P.S. Chandel, Advocate. 
For the respondents:   Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1. 
None   for   remaining
respondents. 
Virender Singh, Judge  
Appellant­United   India   Insurance   Company   Ltd.
has filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against
the   award   dated   01.04.2017,   passed   by   learned   Motor
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
2 2026:HHC:47842
Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, District Una, H.P. (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No. 41/2016,
titled as ‘Champa Devi Versus Pritika Autocost Ltd. & Others’.
2. By   way   of   the   award,   dated   01.04.2017,   the
learned Tribunal has allowed the above titled claim petition
filed   by   respondent   No.   1   and   awarded   a   sum   of   Rs.
10,68,000/­, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum,
from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of the
awarded amount along with interest.  The ultimate liability to
pay the compensation has been fastened upon the appellant­
Insurance Company. 
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
present   are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner,
lis,
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:­
4.1 Petitioner­Champa   Devi   has   filed   the   petition
under   Section   166   of   M.V.   Act,   seeking   compensation   on
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
3 2026:HHC:47842
account of  death  of her  son Gurbaksh  Singh, in  a  motor
vehicle   accident,   involving   vehicle   No.   HP72­5426,
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by
respondent No. 1 Pritika Autocost Ltd., driven by respondent
No. 2 Ashwani Kumar and insured with respondent No. 3
United India Insurance Company Ltd.
4.2 As per the petitioner, her son, at the time of his
death was 26 years of age and he was driver by profession
and as such, he was earning Rs. 12,000/­ per month.
4.3 According   to   the   petitioner,   on   10.02.2016,   at
about 12:00 noon, her son was coming back to his home at
Village  Bathu, on his motorcycle, after visiting the petitioner,
at village Badehar, District Una, H.P.  When, he reached just
ahead   of   Swan   bridge   on   Santokhgarh   Tahliwal   Road,
meanwhile, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent
No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner, came there and hit the
motorcycle of the son of the petitioner.   Consequently, he
sustained fatal injuries and expired.
4.4 The information regarding the accident was given
to the police of Police Station Haroli, and FIR No. 23/2016,
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
4 2026:HHC:47842
dated 10.02.2016, under Sections 279, 337, 304­A of IPC,
was registered.
4.5 The postmortem examination of the dead body of
Gurbaksh Singh was conducted by Doctors at R.H. Una, on
10.02.2016.
4.6 The petitioner has also pleaded about her bright
past and bleak future.   Since the accident has solely been
attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
offending vehicle, as such, the petitioner has sought amount
of compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/­, from the respondents.
STAND   OF   THE   RESPONDENTS   BEFORE   LEARNED
TRIBUNAL:
5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been
contested by the respondents.
5.1 Respondents   No.   1   and   2  have   filed   their   joint
reply, by taking preliminary objections that the petition is not
maintainable; and the claim petition is bad for non­joinder of
necessary   parties,   as   the   insurer   and   registered   owner   of
motorcycle have not been impleaded in the present case.
5.2 On merits, the factum of accident, as well as, the
registration   of   FIR   has   not   been   disputed.     However,
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
5 2026:HHC:47842
according to them, the accident in question had taken place,
due to the negligence of Gurbaksh Singh himself, as he was
riding the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner.  The FIR
in question is stated to have been lodged against respondent
No. 2, in order to get the amount of compensation.
5.3 The   Insurance   Company­respondent   No.   3   has
filed its separate reply, taking preliminary objections, that the
claim petition is not maintainable; respondent No. 2 was not
having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending
vehicle, at the time of accident; the offending vehicle was
being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions
of the insurance policy; and the petition is bad for non­joinder
of the necessary parties, as the owner and insurer of the
motorcycle,   being   driven   by   the   deceased,   have   not   been
impleaded as parties.
5.4 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have
been denied, mainly for want of knowledge.
6. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the
petition.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
6 2026:HHC:47842
7. From the pleadings of the parties, the following
issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 13.06.2016:­
1.  Whether deceased Gurbaksh Singh died on account of
rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.
2? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 above is proved, whether the petitioner is
entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount ?
OPP
3. Whether this petition is bad for non­joinder of necessary
parties? OPR
4. Whether respondent No. 2 did not possess the valid
and effective driving licence at the time of this accident?
OPR­3
5. Whether   the   vehicle   in   question   was   being   plied   by
respondents No. 1 and 2 in contravention of the terms
and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR­3
6. Relief. 
8. Thereafter, the parties to the   lis   were directed to
adduce evidence.
9. 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. 
STAND   OF   THE   INSURANCE   COMPANY   BEFORE   THIS
COURT:
10. Feeling aggrieved from the award, the Insurance
Company of the offending vehicle has preferred the present
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
7 2026:HHC:47842
appeal,   before   this   Court,   on   the   ground   that   the   FIR   in
question   has   wrongly   been   registered   and   police,   after
investigation, filed the cancellation report.   The award has
also been assailed on the ground that the petitioner cannot
take the benefit of rash and negligent driving of her son.  In
this   regard,   it   has   also   been   pleaded   that   the   deceased
himself   was   tortfeasor,   as   such,   claim   petition   is   not
maintainable.     The   award   has   also   been   assailed   on   the
ground   that   the   learned   Tribunal   has   wrongly   taken   the
monthly income of the deceased, as Rs. 5,400/­ per month,
despite the fact that no evidence has been produced on the
record.  Another fact has also been highlighted in the grounds
that  as   per  the   findings   of  the  learned  Tribunal,  monthly
income of deceased comes to Rs. 5,400/­, but, despite the
said   fact,   his   income   has   been   taken   as   Rs.   6,000/­   per
month.  Deceased was unmarried and his employment is not
regular,   as   such,   50%   increase   for   future   prospect   has
wrongly   been   given   to   the   income   of   the   deceased.     The
learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
8 2026:HHC:47842
also submitted that the deceased was working in unorganized
sector. 
10.1 Lastly,   it   has   again   been   highlighted   that   the
accident,   in   question,   had   taken   place   due   to   rash   and
negligent driving of deceased himself.  As such, petitioner is
not entitled for any amount of compensation.
10.2 On   the  basis   of   above  facts,  Mr.  P.S.  Chandel,
Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has prayed that the
appeal may kindly be allowed by exonerating the Insurance
Company   from   indemnifying   the   owner   of   the   offending
vehicle.  Similarly, the amount of compensation has also been
sought to be reduced. 
11. Per   contra,   Mr.   Gaurav   Sharma,   Advocate,
appearing for the petitioner, has supported the award passed
by the learned Tribunal and prayed that the amount may
kindly be enhanced, so that the same could fall within the
definition of “just compensation”.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS:
12. In   order   to   decide   the   appeal   preferred   by   the
Insurance   Company,   it   would   be   just   and   appropriate   to
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
9 2026:HHC:47842
discuss the evidence, so adduced by the parties to the lis,
before the learned Tribunal.
13. After   framing   of   the   issues,   the   petitioner   has
examined Dr. S.K. Bansal, M.O. R.H. Una, who has proved
the copy of postmortem report of Gurbaksh Singh as Ext.
PW1/A.
14. Petitioner­Champa Devi herself stepped into the
witness box as PW­2 and filed her duly sworn­in affidavit Ext.
PW2/A, which is based upon the assertions, as made in the
claim petition.   However, in the opening line of her cross­
examination, she has admitted that the accident in question
had not taken place in her presence.  She also admitted that
she had no proof with regard to the income of deceased.  She
admitted that her deceased son used to work as labourer.
Rest she has denied all the suggestions, put to her.
15. The   petitioner   has   also   examined   one   Sanjeev
Kumar, as an eye witness to the accident.  According to him,
on 10.02.2016, he along with Munish Kumar had gone to
Santokhgarh.   At about 12:00 in the noon, he and Munish
Kumar   were   on   the   way   back   to   their   home.     One
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
10 2026:HHC:47842
motorcyclist, on his motorcycle was ahead of them.   Then,
from Tahliwal side, offending vehicle came there, being driven
by   its   driver   in   rash   and   negligent   manner   and   hit   the
motorcycle.     Consequently,   the   rider   of   the   motorcycle
sustained   grievous   injuries.     Thereafter,   this   witness   and
Munish Kumar noticed that the rider of the motorcycle, who
sustained injuries is Gurbaksh Singh, who is their co­villager.
Gurbaksh Singh was taken to hospital, but, he has expired.
Lastly, he has deposed that the accident, in question, had
taken   place   due   to   the   rash   and   negligent   driving   of   the
offending vehicle.
16. In the cross­examination, PW­3 has deposed that
the   accident,   in   question,   had   taken   place,   just   ahead   of
Santokhgarh bridge.  This witness was going to Tahliwal from
Santokhgarh.  He has denied that the rider of the motorcycle
struck the motorcycle against the offending vehicle.  Rest, he
has denied the allegations, which has been suggested against
the   rider   of   the   motorcycle   (deceased).     This   witness   was
present at a distance on 20­25 meters from the place, where
the accident, in question, had taken place.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
11 2026:HHC:47842
17. PW­4 HHC Yash Pal, proved the copy of FIR Ext.
PW4/A and he has deposed that the FIR has been registered
against Ashwani Kumar and later on cancellation report was
submitted on 06.05.2016.
18. To rebut this evidence, Smt. Shanti, Civil Ahlmad
from   the   Court   of   JMFC,   Court   No.   III,   Una   has   been
examined as RW­1, who proved the closure report, which was
submitted   on   06.05.2016,   and   the   case   is   stated   to   be
pending for 28.02.2017.
19. The driver of the offending vehicle appeared in the
witness box as RW­2 and deposed that on 10.02.2016, he was
driving the offending vehicle at a very slow speed and on his
right   direction.     When,   he   reached   near   Swan   bridge,
Gurbaksh Singh (deceased) came there in a wrong side, while
riding   the   motorcycle   in   very   high   speed,   in   a   rash   and
negligent manner and struck against the offending vehicle.
Thereafter,  wrong  FIR  was  registered  against   this  witness,
just to get the claim and later on, after investigation, the
police submitted the cancellation report, by holding that the
accident,   in   question,   had   taken   place   due   to   rash   and
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
12 2026:HHC:47842
negligent driving of Gurbaksh Singh himself.   The UTR, is
pending in the Court of learned JMFC Court No. III Una.
20. In the cross­examination, this witness has denied
the suggestion that he was not having a valid driving licence
qua the offending vehicle.   In the cross­examination by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, he denied the suggestion
that the owner of the vehicle was an influential person.
21. This is the entire oral evidence.
22. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned,
Ext. PW1/A is the copy of postmortem report, Ext. PW4/A is
the copy of FIR, Ext. R­1 is the copy of report under Section
173(2) Cr.P.C., Ext. R­2 is the report submitted by SDPO
Haroli to learned CJM Una, Ext. R­3 is the copy of statement
of   Sanjeev   Kumar,   who   has   got   his   satisfaction   recorded
towards   the   investigation   conducted   by   the   police   and
thereafter, submitted the cancellation report, Ext. RW1/A is
the copy of Registration Certificate, Ext. RW2/B is copy of
driving   licence   of   respondent   No.   2,   Ext.   R­X   is   copy   of
insurance   policy,   and   Mark   X   is   the   copy   of   legal   heirs
certificate.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
13 2026:HHC:47842
23. Along   with   the   appeal,   before   this   Court,   the
appellant­Insurance Company has placed on record the copy
of report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., submitted by the
police, by virtue of which, closure report, has been submitted.
24. This is the entire evidence.
25. The proceedings under the M.V. Act are summary
in nature, where the liability of the tortfeasor is to be fixed on
the  basis  of  preponderance  of  probabilities.    In  this  case,
factum   of   accident   has   not   been   disputed.     Admittedly,
petitioner   was   not   witness   of   the   accident   in   question.
However,   the   petitioner   has   examined   one   independent
witness   PW­3   Sh.   Sanjeev   Kumar,   who   not   only   deposed
about the manner in which, the accident in question had
taken   place,   but   also   withstood   the   lengthy   cross­
examination,   however,   nothing   could   be   elicited   from   this
witness   by   the   respondents,   including   the   Insurance
Company about the fact that he was having any axe to grind
against   respondent   No.   2.     Merely,   the   police   after   the
investigation has submitted the closure report, does not mean
that the evidence of PW­3, on oath, is liable to be discarded.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
14 2026:HHC:47842
26. Admittedly,   the   statements   of   witnesses,   which
had   been   relied   by   the   police   while   submitting   the
cancellation report, were not recorded on oath.   Moreover,
PW­3 Sanjeev Kumar, is the person, who has also lodged the
FIR and also appeared in the witness box.  If the contents of
FIR are seen, he has categorically leveled the allegations of
rash   and   negligent   driving   against   respondent   No.   2.     As
such, his presence on the spot cannot be doubted.
27. So far as the submission of cancellation report is
concerned, there is no evidence on the report to show, as to
how the investigating officer has concluded the above fact.  In
the cancellation report, which is on the record as Ext. R­1,
although, it has been concluded that during the investigation,
it has been found that the accident in question had taken
place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the
motorcycle, but, the evidence of the respondents is totally
silent as to how the I.O. has come to the said conclusion and
in whose statement this fact has transpired.  Along with the
cancellation report, apart from complainant Sanjeev Kumar,
the   police   has   mentioned   the   name   of   three   persons,   as
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
15 2026:HHC:47842
witnesses to the accident.  The Insurance Company has not
bothered to examine any of them to prove/probablize the fact
that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle No. HP20E­
1646.
28. So far as the statement of Sanjeev Kumar Ext. R­
3,   in   which,   he   has   recorded   his   satisfaction   with   the
cancellation report, is concerned, considering the low legal
literacy of the Indian masses, no adverse inference could be
drawn   against   the   statement   of   PW­3   Sanjeev   Kumar.
Moreover, the Insurance Company was having an occasion to
confront PW­3 Sanjeev Kumar with his statement, which has
been recorded before the Court of learned JMFC,Court No. III,
Una, when the police has submitted the closure/cancellation
report.  When the document has not been put to the witness,
when, he appeared in the witness box, then, no inference can
be   drawn   that   he   has   given   his   satisfaction   about   the
investigation of the case.
29. The statement before the learned JMFC Court No.
III, Una was recorded on 03.08.2016, whereas, this witness
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
16 2026:HHC:47842
appeared before the learned Tribunal on 02.08.2016.  Even,
the Insurance Company has not sought the indulgence of
learned Tribunal to recall the said witness by confronting him
with   the   said   statement.     The   plea   of   rash   and   negligent
driving by the rider of the motorcycle, has been taken by the
respondents,   as   such,   onus   was   upon   them   to
prove/probablize that the evidence of Sanjeev Kumar is not
liable to be taken into consideration to accept the contention
of the petitioner. 
30. Moreover, the statement before the learned JMFC
Court No. III Una, has no relevance for the decision of the
present case, as the eye witness to the accident, who has also
lodged the FIR, categorically leveled the allegations of rash
and   negligent   driving   of   the   offending   vehicle   against
respondent   No.   2,   when   he   appears   before   the   learned
Tribunal  In such situation, the learned Tribunal has rightly
held that the accident in question had taken place due to the
rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, while driving
the offending vehicle.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
17 2026:HHC:47842
31. Consequently, the plea as taken by the Insurance
Company   in   the   appeal   is   liable   to   be   rejected.     Ordered
accordingly.
32. It is no longer res integra that the endeavour of
the Court/Tribunal is to grant ‘just compensation’.  In order
to achieve the above legislative intent, now, this Court would
consider   the   fact,   whether   the   amount   of   compensation,
which has been awarded to the petitioner, falls within the
definition of ‘just compensation’ or not.
33. In   the   present   case,   the   learned   Tribunal   has
taken the age of deceased Gurbaksh Singh, at the time of his
death,   as   26   years.     This   has   been   done   by   the   learned
Tribunal on the basis of age as mentioned in the postmortem
report Ext. PW1/A.  In the absence of any evidence, contrary
to   the   said   age,   no   interference   is   required   in   the   above
findings.
34. So   far   as   the   earnings   of   deceased   Gurbaksh
Singh,   during   his   life   time,   are   concerned,   the   learned
Tribunal   has   rightly   taken   the   same   as   Rs.   6,000/­   per
month,   by   assuming   Sh.  Gurbaksh   Singh   as  daily  wager.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
18 2026:HHC:47842
Merely   because   the   learned   Tribunal   has   taken   the   daily
income   as   Rs.   170/­,   as   per   the   amount   given   to   the
MNREGA   worker,   does   not   mean   that   the   conclusion   so
drawn is required to be interfered with.  However, the learned
Tribunal   has   fallen   into   error   by   giving   50%   increase   on
future prospects, had he been alive, in view of the decision of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled “ National Insurance
Company Ltd. Versus Pranay Sethi & Others, (2017) 16
Supreme Court Cases 680 ”. The relevant para 59.4 of the
judgment, has been reproduced, as under:­
“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.”
35. 40% increase is liable to be made, on account of
future prospects, as deceased Gurbaksh Singh was working
in unorganized sector.  Being guided by the above judgment,
the   monthly   contribution   of   deceased   towards   his   family
comes to Rs. 6,000/­ + 40% (Rs.2,400/­) = Rs. 8,400/­.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
19 2026:HHC:47842
36. Admittedly   deceased   Gurbaksh   Singh   was
bachelor, as such, 50% amount is liable to be deducted on
account of personal expenses, had he been alive.  Thus, his
contribution comes to Rs. 8,400/­ minus 50% = Rs. 4,200/­. 
37. The learned Tribunal has applied the multiplier of
‘17’, which, according to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in “
Sarla Verma   Vs Delhi Transport Corportation,
2009 (6) SCC 121 ”, is the appropriate multiplier, applied in
the present case.  Thus, the loss of contribution comes to Rs.
4,200/­ x 12 x 17 = Rs. 8,56,800/­.
38. In this case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a
sum   of   Rs.   1,00,000/­,   on   account   of   ‘loss   of   love   and
affection’, Rs. 50,000/­, on account of ‘funeral expenses and
cost of litigation’, which are liable to be reduced, on account
of   Pranay Sethi’s  case (supra).
39. Under the conventional heads, as per the dictate
of   Pranay Sethi’s   case (supra), the petitioner is also held
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.
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
20 2026:HHC:47842
40. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners is thus
adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of income = Rs. 8,56,800/­
2. Loss of consortium =  Rs. 40,000/­ 
3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/­
4. Funeral Expenses = Rs. 15,000/­
_________________________________________________________
    Total = Rs. 9,26,800/­.
     ________________________________________________________
41. The   learned   Tribunal   has   awarded   the   rate   of
interest   at   the   rate   of   9%   per   annum,   which,   to   the
considered opinion of this Court, is liable to be reduced while
keeping   in   view   the   prevalent   rates   of   interest   in   the
nationalized banks.   Consequently, the same is reduced to
7.5% per annum.
42. No other point has been urged or argued.
43. Having glance of the above discussion, the appeal
of the Insurance Company is partly allowed, by reducing the
amount   of   compensation   from   Rs.   10,68,000/­   to   Rs.
9,26,800/­, and the rate of interest is also reduced from 9%
to 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till
the deposit of award amount.  The ultimate liability to pay the
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS

High Court of H.P.
21 2026:HHC:47842
compensation   is   on   the   Insurance   Company.     The   award
passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly. 
44. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
45. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
46. Record be sent back.
                       (Virender Singh)
Judge 
st
31  October, 2026
(Pramod Kumar)
        
::: Downloaded on - 31/10/2026 13:11:16 :::CIS