THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. vs KUSHALA
- Court
- High Court of Himachal Pradesh
1 2026:HHC:45843
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
FAO(MV) No. 60 of 2015
Reserved on: 11.9.2026
Decided on: 16.10.2026
Uploaded on: 16.10.2026
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant
Versus
Kushala & others …..Respondents
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? yes
________________________________________________________
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma,
Senior Advocate, assisted by
Ms. Mamta, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Praveen Kumar
Chauhan, Advocate, for
respondents No. 1 to 4.
Mr. Gurmeet Bhardwaj,
Advocate, for respondent No.
5.
____________________________________________________
Virender Singh, Judge :
The present appeal has been filed under
Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated
21.10.2014, passed by learned MACT Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, Chamba, Division Chamba, H.P.
(hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’) in MAC Petition
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:45843
No. 35/2013 (409/2013), titled as, ‘Kushala and others
High Court of H.P.
versus Pankaj Kumar and others’.
2. By way of award dated 21.10.2014, while
allowing the petition, filed by respondent Nos. 1 to 4, the
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 33,97,440/-
along with interest @ Rs. 7.5% per annum, from the date
of filing of the petition, till the realization of the amount,
to be paid by the Insurance Company.
3. The parties to the present appeal, are
hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, in which,
they were referred to, by the learned Tribunal.
4. Brief facts, leading to filing the present appeal,
before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be
summed up, as under:
The petitioners being widow, daughters, and
son of Babu Ram have filed the claim petition, under
Section 166 of the MV Act, against the respondents,
being owner-cum-driver and Insurer of the Motor Cycle,
bearing registration No. HP 46-1238 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the offending vehicle’), being driven by respondent
No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner, on 03.05.2013.
4.1 According to the petitioners, deceased was
walking on the road and was hit by the offending vehicle,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:45843
being driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent
High Court of H.P.
manner, at Lahal. The information regarding the accident
was given to Police Station, Bharmour, where FIR No. 18
of 2013 was lodged against respondent No.1. Shri Babu
Ram, was 37 years old, at the relevant time, and was
earning Rs. 25,000/- by working as Roller Helper, with
Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department. The
petitioners have pleaded their bright past and bleak
future.
4.2 Since, the accident in question has only been
attributed to the rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1-driver of the offending vehicle, and the
Insurer of the vehicle was respondent No. 2, as such, the
petitioners have sought the amount of compensation
against the respondents.
5. When put to notice, claim petition has been
contested by the respondents by filing the replies.
5.1 Respondent No. 1 has filed reply by taking
preliminary objection that the petition is not
maintainable.
5.2 On merits, pleas as contained in paras 1, 2,
7, 8 9, 10 and 11 to 18 have been admitted. Rest of the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:45843
contents of the claim petition have been denied, for want
High Court of H.P.
of knowledge.
5.3 According to respondent No.1, accident in
question had not taken place, due to his rash and
negligent driving, but, the same had taken place, due to
the negligence of the deceased himself, who, suddenly
appeared from the backside of the stationary truck and
was abruptly trying to cross the road, without looking to
the vehicular traffic.
5.4. Insurance company of the vehicle i.e.
respondent No. 2 has filed a separate reply, by taking the
preliminary objections qua the fact that the claim petition
is not maintainable; driver of the offending vehicle was
not holding a valid driving license, as it was only learning
license, at the time of accident, As per Rule (3) of CMV
Rules,1989, which prohibits him from driving any motor
vehicle, unless he has, besides him, a person duly
licensed to drive the vehicle, to instruct him, and in every
case, the vehicle carries “L” plates both in the front and
in the rear side of the vehicle.
5.4 As per the reply, respondent No. 2 was riding
the offending vehicle, against the said rules; the owner-
cum-driver has breached the conditions of the Insurance
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:45843
policy; the offending vehicle was being driven, in violation
High Court of H.P.
of terms and conditions of insurance policy; and the
petitioners have not approached the court with clean
hands.
5.5 On merits, the contents of the claim petition
have been denied, for want of knowledge.
5.6 Petitioners have filed rejoinder to the reply
filed by respondent No. 2, by denying the preliminary
objections, as well as, the contents of the reply, by virtue
of which, the claim petition has been contested.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned
Tribunal has framed the following issues, vide order
dated 28.12.2013:
1. Whether on 3.5.2013 at about 2:20 p.m. near Lalah
Tehsil Bharmour, District Chamba, respondent No. 1
was driving vehicle No. HP-46-1238 in a rash and
negligent manner and hit Babu Ram, who later on
died, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative,
whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation,if
so, to what amount and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No. 1 was driving the motor
cycle under the supervision of one Shri Anu Mehra of
Sohan Lal, resident of village Sirat P.O.Matali, Tehsil
Indora, Distt. Kangra, who was sitting as pillion rider
with respondent No. 1, as his trainer. If so, its effect?
OPR1.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:45843
4. Whether the accident took place due to negligence
High Court of H.P.
of deceased himself, who all of a sudden appeared
from the back side of a stationary truck and got
himself struck against the motor cycle of respondent
No. 1 despite blowing of horn by him, as alleged?
OPR1
5. Whether driver-cum-owner Pankaj Kumar was
driving the motor cycle in violation of Rule (3) of CMV
Rules, 1989, therefore, respondent No. 2 is not liable
to pay any compensation, as alleged? OPR-2.
6. Whether the motor cycle was being driven in
violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance
Policy, as alleged? OPR-2.
7. Relief.
7. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed
to adduce evidence. After the closure of the evidence, the
learned Tribunal has allowed the said petition, by
awarding the compensation, as referred to above, by
fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of
compensation, on the Insurance Company.
8. Feeling aggrieved from the said award,
Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal,
before this Court, assailing the award, mainly on the
ground that the learned Tribunal is erroneous in
fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to
pay the amount of compensation. As per Rule 3 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rule, the offending vehicle was
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:45843
being driven, in violation of terms and conditions of the
High Court of H.P.
Insurance Policy.
9. According to the Insurance Company, it has
been established that the driving license of the driver was
holding a learner’s license and on the strength of this
license, he could not be held to be duly licensed driver.
10. Relying upon the provisions of Section 3(2) of
the Motor Vehicles Act, a plea has been taken that the
Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount of
compensation.
11. Apart from this, the amount of compensation
has also been sought to be reduced, on the ground that
the same is on the higher side.
12. On the basis of the above facts, Mr. Ashwani
K. Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Mamta,
Advocate, appearing for the appellant has prayed that the
present petition may kindly be allowed by setting aside
the impugned award, by virtue of which, liability has
been fastened upon the Insurance Company. In addition
to this, it has also been prayed that the awarded amount
may kindly be reduced.
13. The Insurance Company has further assailed
the award on the ground that the Insurance Company
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:45843
has no liability to pay the amount of compensation, as
High Court of H.P.
there is fundamental breach of the insurance policy, as
the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving
license to drive the same, at the time of accident.
14. Per contra, Mr. Praveen Chauhan, learned
counsel, appearing for respondents No.1 to 4/claimants
has supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal
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. Gurmeet Bhardwaj, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 5, owner-cum-driver, of the
offending vehicle has also supported the award, passed
by the learned Tribunal.
16. In order to decide the present appeal, it would
be just and proper for this Court to discuss the oral, as
well as, documentary evidence, adduced by the parties,
before the learned Tribunal.
16. After framing of issues, petitioners have
examined Dr. Devinder Kumar, Regional Medical Officer,
RH Chamba, who has conducted the post-mortem
examination on the dead body of deceased Babu Ram.
The post mortem report is Ext. PW1/A.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:45843
17. PW-2 is Kushala, wife of deceased Babu Ram.
High Court of H.P.
She has tendered the copy of the FIR mark A,
postmortem report, Exhibit PW2/B. In the cross-
examination, this witness has admitted that she was not
present at the time of accident. She has denied rest of the
suggestions.
17.1 In the cross examination by the Insurance
Company, this witness has admitted that he has not
annexed the copy of the Pariwar Register, along with the
affidavit, nor any witness from the PWD Department has
been examined. She has denied that her husband was
not working with PWD as Roller Helper, nor he was
earning ₹ 2,500 per month. She has stated that the
offending vehicle was being driven by Pankaj Kumar. As
per this witness, FIR was not lodged by this witness.
18. To rebut this evidence, respondent No. 1
Pankaj Kumar filed his affidavit Exhibit PW1/A, which is
based upon the averments made in the reply to the claim
petition. According to this witness, on 3.5.2013, he was
riding the offending vehicle, along with Anu Mehra S/o
Sohan Lal. According to this witness, at the place of
accident, one truck was parked and Babu Ram,
suddenly came out from the back side of truck and tried
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:45843
to cross the road. In meanwhile, he came in contact with
High Court of H.P.
the offending vehicle. He has stated that Anu Mehra was
having the license and he was driving the offending
vehicle, under the supervision of Anu Mehra. He has
produced the copy of the Insurance Policy, Exhibit
RW1/B, Registration Certificate Ext. RW1/C, Driving
License mark X.
19. He has admitted that at the time of accident,
he was having the learning license. He has admitted that
when, a person is having the learner’s license, he could
drive the vehicle only when instructor is with him.
Voluntarily stated that Anu Mehra was with him, who
was imparting instructions to him. He has denied that
Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving
license.
20. RW2, Jeet Singh, from the office of RLA,
Dharampur, proved the abstract of the driving license
registered as Ext. RW2/A. The license was valid w.e.f.
5.12.2012 to 26.6.2013.
21. So far as the documentary evidence is
concerned, Ext. PW1/B is the copy of the postmortem
report, Ext. PW2/B is the copy of the inquest report, Ext.
PA is the last pay certificate, Ext.PB is the copy of the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:45843
FIR, Ext. PC is the copy of the Pariwar Register, whereas,
High Court of H.P.
on the other hand, the Insurance Company has placed on
record the copy of Registration Certificate Ext. RW1/C,
and copy of the driving license Ext.RW2/A.
22. By way of present appeal, the Insurance
Company has sought the relief that the Insurance-
Company may kindly be exonerated from indemnifying
the owner, as the owner-cum-driver of the offending
vehicle, Pankaj Kumar was not having a valid and
effective driving licence, and he was having a learner's
licence. The lack of a valid and effective driving licence, is
stated to be the fundamental breach of the Insurance
policy.
23. To decide the contention of the Insurance
Company, it would be appropriate for this Court to
discuss the provisions of Sections 2(10), 2(19), 3(2) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, and Rule 3 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, which have been reproduced as:
Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act: “Driving
licence” means the licence issued by a competent
authority under Chapter II authorizing the person
specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner,
a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified
class or description.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:45843
Section 2(19) of the Motor Vehicles Act: “Learner’s
High Court of H.P.
licence” means the licence issued by a competent
authority under Chapter II authorizing ther person
specified therein to drive as a learner, a motor vehicle
or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.
Section 3. Necessity for driving licence--
(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1)
shall not apply to a person receiving instruction in
driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be
prescribed by the Central Government.
Rule -3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules:
General-The provisions of sub-section(1) of section 3
shall instructions or gaining experience in driving with
the object of presenting himself for a test of
competence to drive, so long as-
(a) such person is the holder of an effective learner's
licence issued to him in Form 3 to drive the vehicle;
(b) such person is accompanied by an instructor
holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle
and instructor is sitting at such a position to control or
stop the vehicle; and
(c) there is painted, in the front and the rear of the
vehicle or on a plate or card affixed to the front or the
rear, the letter "L" in red on a white background.
Note—The painting on the vehicle or on the plate or
card shall not be less than 18 centimeters squares and
the letter “L” shall not be less than 10 centimeters
high, 2 centimeters thick and 9 centimeters wide at the
bottom.
Provided that a person, while receiving instructions or
gaining experience in driving a motorcycle (with or
without a side-car attached), shall not carry any other
person on the motorcycle except for the purpose, and
in the manner referred to in clause (b).
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:45843
24. In this case, it has not been disputed by the
High Court of H.P.
owner-cum-driver that he was having the learner's
licence, as, when he appeared in the witness box as RW1,
he has produced the driving licence mark-X, which has
later been exhibited as Ext. RW2/A. The said licence
admittedly is learner's licence, authorizing him to have
learner's licence.
25. As per the statement of RW2, by virtue of the
said learner's licence, Ext. RW2/A, Pankaj Kumar was
authorized to drive motorcycle with gear, which was valid
from 19.12.2012 to to 28.6.2013.
26. In his examination-in-chief, Pankaj Kumar
has got recorded in his affidavit that on 3.5.2013, he,
along with Anu Mehra, S/o Sohan Lal, R/o Village Sirat,
P.O. Motali, Tehsil Indora, District Kangra, was rider on
the offending vehicle. He has also stated that at the
relevant time, he was having the learner's licence and
Anu Mehra was having the valid licence, and under the
instructions of said Anu Mehra, he was driving the
vehicle with full control over it, in a limited speed.
27. Even, in the cross-examination, conducted by
the Insurance Company, he has deposed that Anu Mehra
was his instructor. A suggestion was given to him that
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:45843
Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving
High Court of H.P.
licence to drive the scooter. He has denied the said
suggestion.
28. On the basis of the above evidence, it has
vehemently been argued by the learned Counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company that said Anu
Mehra has not been examined by respondent No. 1 and
the said failure to examine Anu Mehra, as his witness, is
fatal for the case of respondent No. 1. The said argument
does not hold water, since, the alleged breach of the
terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, has been
alleged by the Insurance Company, and the onus to prove
that Anu Mehra, whose parentage and address has duly
been deposed by RW1, was not having a valid and
effective driving licence, rests upon it. There was every
occasion for the Insurance Company to call said Anu
Mehra as its witness, in the witness box, to ascertain the
fact whether Anu Mehra was having an effective and valid
driving licence, at the relevant time, when, he was
imparting instructions to respondent No. 1 to drive the
two-wheeler (Motor Cycle).
29. In the light of the Insurance Company’s
failure to prove/probabilize the fact that Anu Mehra was
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:45843
not having a valid and effective driving licence, no benefit
High Court of H.P.
can be derived by it, particularly on the ground that the
respondent No. 1 has not examined Anu Mehra, as his
witness, nor produced his licence.
30. In this case, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Insurance Company has also made a
futile attempt to draw the attention of the Court towards
the reply of respondent No. 1 and argued that in the
reply, these material facts have not been pleaded by
respondent No. 1 that he was having a learner's licence
and at the relevant time, he was driving the offending
vehicle, under the instructions of Anu Mehra, who was
having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the
two-wheeler.
31. Respondent No. 1 was supposed to respond to
the contents of the claim petition, in his reply. He was not
supposed to plead those facts, which are not there, in the
claim petition. Moreover, it has not been mandated on
part of the owner to plead about the fact that he was
having the driving licence or learner's licence and he was
driving the offending vehicle, under the supervision of a
person, who was having a valid and effective driving
licence. This plea has been taken by the Insurance
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:45843
Company, and it was for the Insurance Company to
High Court of H.P.
prove/probabilize the violation of the provisions of law, as
referred to above, as well as, the fundamental breach of
the Insurance Policy.
32. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as,
‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Bhagwani & others,
reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 2874, has held that
the learner’s license is a valid license. Relevant
paragraph-1 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
“1.This Special Leave Petition is covered by a
judgment of this Court in SLP (Civil) No. 9027 of 2003,
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Swaran Singh and
others delivered today where it has been held that the
learner’s licence is also a valid licence.”
33. The above decision is based upon the decision
of a three judges Bench of a Supreme Court in a case
titled as, ‘National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran
Singh’, reported in (2004)3 Supreme Court Cases 297.
Relevant paragraphs 93 and 94 of the judgment are
reproduced as under:
“93. The Motor Vehicles Ac, 1988 provides for grant of
learner’s licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2),
Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner’s licence is,
thus, also a licence within the meaning of the
provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said
that when a vehicle is being driven by a learner
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
17 2026:HHC:45843
subject to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he
High Court of H.P.
would not be a person who is not “duly licensed”
resulting in conferring a right on the insurer to avoid
the claim of the third party. It cannot be said that a
person holding a learner’s licence is not entitled to
drive the vehicle. Even if there exists a condition in
the contract of insurance that the vehicle cannot be
driven by a person holding a learner’s licence, the
same would run counter to the provisions of Section
149(2) of the said Act.”
94. The provisions contained in the said Act provide
also for grant of driving licence which is otherwise a
learner's licence. Sections 3(2) and 6 of the Act
provide for restriction in the matter of grant of driving
licence, Section 7 deals with such restrictions on
granting of learner's licence. Sections 8 and 9 provide
for the manner and conditions for grant of driving
licence. Section 15 provides for renewal of driving
licence. Learner's licences are granted under the
Rules framed by the Central Government or the State
Governments in exercise of their rule-making power.
Conditions are attached to the learner's licences
granted in terms of the statute. A person holding b
learner's licence would, thus, also come within the
purview of "duly licensed" as such a licence is also
granted in terms of the provisions of the Act and the
Rules framed thereunder. It is now a well-settled
principle of law that rules validly framed become part
of the statute. Such rules are, therefore, required to
be read as a part of the main enactment. It is also a
well-settled principle of law that for the interpretation
of statute an attempt must be made to give effect to
all provisions under the rule. No provision should be
considered as surplusage.”
(self emphasis supplied)
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
18 2026:HHC:45843
34. At the cost of repetition, it can be held that the
High Court of H.P.
Insurance Company has miserably failed to prove that
Anu Mehra was not having a valid and effective driving
license, as the said fact could easily be proved or
disproved by summoning said Anu Mehra, in the witness
box. The failure of the Insurance Company to do so, is
fatal for its case and on this ground, the plea of the
Insurance Company to seek exoneration from
indemnifying the owner, cannot be accepted.
35. The matter can be seen from another angle.
The driver-cum-owner was possessing a driving license.
The offending vehicle was Motor Cycle with gear. In such
situation, considering the proviso, added to Rule-3 of the
Central Motor Vehicles Rules, there is no legal
requirement for the Instructor to be with the person,
possessing the learner’s licence. The proviso, added with
Rule -3 is to be considered alongwith the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules, 1989. Rule 24 of the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules is reproduced, as under:
“24. Driving schools and establishments.—(1) No person
shall establish or maintain any driving school or
establishment for imparting instructions for hire or
reward in driving motor vehicles without a licence in
Form 11 granted by the licensing authority.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
19 2026:HHC:45843
(2) An application for the grant or renewal of a licence
High Court of H.P.
under sub-rule (1) shall be made in Form 12 or Form 13,
as the case may be, to the licensing authority having
jurisdiction in the area in which the school or
establishment is situated and shall be accompanied by
appropriate fee as specified in rule 32. Explanation.—For
the purposes of this rule and rules 25 to 28 "licensing
authority" means an officer not below the rank of the
Regional Transport Officer of the Motor Vehicles
Department established under section 213.
(3) The licensing authority shall, when considering an
application for the grant or renewal of a licence under
this rule, have regard to the following matters, namely:—
(i) the applicant and the staff working under him are of
good moral character and are qualified to give driving
instructions;
(ii) the premises where the school or establishment is
proposed to be conducted is either owned by the
applicant or is taken on lease by him or is hired in his
name and it has adequate provision for [conducting
lecture and demonstration of models] besides adequate
parking area for the vehicles meant to be used for
imparting instructions in driving:
Provided that in respect of schools or establishments
imparting instructions in driving of motor vehicles or
matters connected therewith immediately before the
commencement of these rules, the licensing authority
may permit the conducting of instruction facilities in the
same premises where the school or establishment is
housed for a period of six months, notwithstanding the
fact that the premises do not satisfy the conditions laid
down in this clause;
(iii) the financial resources of the proposed school or
establishment are sufficient to provide for its continued
maintenance;
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
20 2026:HHC:45843
(iv) the applicant owns and maintains a minimum of one
High Court of H.P.
motor vehicle each of the type in which instruction is
imparted in the school or establishment;
(v) the vehicles are available exclusively for purposes of
imparting instruction and all such vehicles, except motor
cycles, are fitted with dual control facility to enable the
instructor to control or stop the vehicle;
(vi) the applicant maintains the following apparatus,
equipment and Dther requirements, namely:—
(a) a blackboard,
(b) a road plan board with necessary model signals and
charts,
(c) traffic signs chart,
(d) chart on automatic signals and signals given by traffic
controllers where there are no automatic signals,
(e) a service chart depicting a detailed view of all the
components of a motor vehicle,
(f) engine gear box, [brake shoe and drums] (except where
the applicant desires to impart instruction in the driving
of motor cycles only), (g) puncture kit with tyre lever,
wheel brace, jack and tyre pressure gauge,
(h) spanners (a set each of fix spanners, box spanners,
pliers, screw drivers, screw spanners, and hammer),
(i) driving instructions manual,
(j) benches and tables for trainees and work bench,
[ *]
(m) a [collection] of books on automobile mechanism,
driving, road safety, traffic regulations, laws relating to
motor vehicles and related subjects [*]
(n) a fully equipped first-aid box for use in emergency at
the premises; [ *]
(viii) The applicant or any member of the staff employed
by him for imparting instructions possesses the following
qualifications, namely:— (a) a minimum educational
qualification of a pass in the 10th standard,
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
21 2026:HHC:45843
(b) a minimum driving experience of five years in addition
High Court of H.P.
to a certificate in a course in motor mechanics or any
other higher qualification in mechanical engineering from
an institution established by the Central or a State
Government or from an institution recognised by the
Board of Technical Education of a State Government,
(c) thorough knowledge of traffic signs specified in the
Schedule to the Act and the regulations made under
section 118,
(d) ability to demonstrate and to explain the functions of
different components, parts of the vehicles,
(e) adequate knowledge of English or the regional
language of the region in which the school or
establishment is situated: Provided that any person who
has served as an instructor for a period of not less than
five years immediately before the commencement of these
rules, is exempted from the requirements of this sub-
clause.
(4) The licensing authority may, on receipt of an
application under sub-rule (2) and after satisfying that
the applicant has complied with the requirements of sub-
rule (3), grant or renew a licence in Form 11 [within a
period of ninety days from receipt of such an application],
(5) No application for licence shall be refused by the
licensing authority unless the applicant is given an
opportunity of being heard and reasons for such refusal
are given in writing by the licensing authority.
36. In view of Rule 24 (3)(v) as reproduced above,
the Instructor shall accompany the learner, while driving
the motor vehicle, having dual control facility, to enable
the instructor to control or stop the vehicle.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
22 2026:HHC:45843
37. Admittedly, the Motor cycle is exempted and it
High Court of H.P.
does not require any instructor to be accompanied,
holding the learner’s licence.
38. Proviso to Rule 3 enabling the rider of the
motor cycle shall not carry any other person, on the
motor cycle, as pillion rider, except, for the purpose, and
in the manner, referred to in clause (b), which shows that
the person holding a driving license shall be accompanied
by a person, who holds a learner's license for the
motorcycle, but not a license for a motor vehicle.
39. As such, the learned Tribunal has rightly
fastened the liability upon the Insurance Company to
indemnify the owner-cum-driver. Interestingly, while
reproducing Rule-3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,
the proviso added with Rule 3 has not been reproduced
by the Insurance Company. The selective reproduction of
the Rule also dis-entitles the Insurance Company to
claim any relief, in the present appeal.
40. It is no longer res integra that the endeavor of
the Court or Tribunal is to grant just compensation. In
order to achieve the said goal, now, this Court would
proceed further to ascertain the fact whether the learned
Tribunal has granted just compensation or not?
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
23 2026:HHC:45843
41. The age of deceased Babu Ram has been held
High Court of H.P.
to be 37 years. In the claim petition, his age has been
mentioned as 37, and even in the post-mortem report
exhibit PW-1/A, his age has been mentioned as 37 years.
Apart from this, the copy of the Pariwar Register has also
been placed on record, as Ext. PC, in which, the date of
birth of deceased Babu Ram has been mentioned as
1.7.1974. The accident in question had taken place on
3.5.2013. So, his age comes to 39 years.
42. So far as the income of deceased Babu Ram is
concerned, it has been pleaded that he was a roller helper
in HPPWD and his salary was Rs. 25,000/- per month.
The last pay certificate of Shri Babu Ram, has been
produced by the counsel, representing the petitioner and
has been exhibited as Ext. PE. Although, the petitioners
have not examined any official witness from the
Department of HPPWD, to prove the last pay certificate,
but considering the fact that the strict Rules of the
Evidence Act, are not applicable to the proceedings,
under the Motor Vehicles Act, as they are summary in
nature, the same can be taken into consideration.
43. The monthly salary of deceased Babu Ram
has been taken as Rs. 16,407/-, which is based upon the
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
24 2026:HHC:45843
last pay certificate, which does not require any
High Court of H.P.
interference. Thus, the annual income of deceased comes
to Rs. 16,407 x 12 = Rs. 1,96,884/-. The learned
Tribunal has rightly given the addition of 50%, on
account of future prospects, had Babu Ram been alive, as
age of deceased Babu Ram was taken to be 37 years, as
he was working in an organized Sector. Thus, his annual
income would come to Rs. 1,96,884/- + Rs. 98, 442/-
(additional 50% hike) = Rs. 2,95,326/-. Out of this
amount, the tax component is to be deducted.
44. As per the tax slab, for the assessment year
2013-2014, the annual income upto Rs. 2,00,000/-was
exempted. Therefore, out of Rs. 2,95,326/-, the taxable
amount comes to Rs. 95,236/-. After deducting the tax @
10%, the amount comes to Rs. 9533/- The education
cess @ 2% on the aforesaid amount is also liable to be
deducted, which comes to Rs. 191/-. Thus, the total tax
component comes to Rs. 9724/-. Hence, the established
income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,95,326 minus Rs.
9724= Rs. 2,85,602/- per annum.
45. Keeping in view the number of dependents,
1/4th amount is liable to be deducted, towards personal
expenses, had he been alive. His contribution towards his
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
25 2026:HHC:45843
family, comes to Rs. 2,85,602/- minus Rs. 71,400/-
High Court of H.P.
th
(1/4 of Rs. 2,85,602/-) = Rs. 2,14,202/- and a
multiplier of 15 is the appropriate multiplier to be
applied, in the present case. Thus, the claimants are held
entitled to Rs. 2,14,202 x 15 = Rs. 32,13,030/-.
46. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of love and affection, Rs.
25,000/- towards funeral expenses, and Rs. 25,000/- on
account of loss of consortium. These findings, as per the
mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as,
‘National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay
Sethi and others’, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court
Cases 680, 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’.
` 47. Further in view of the decision of Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company
Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018)
18 SCC 130, all the claimants are held entitled for the
amount under the head ‘loss of consortium’. Relevant
paragraphs 21 to 24, are reproduced as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
26 2026:HHC:45843
21. A Constitution Bench of this Court in
Pranay Seth(supra) dealt with the various
heads under which compensation is to be
awarded in a death case. One of these heads
is Loss of Consortium. In legal
parlance,“consortium” is a compendious term
which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’,
‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial
consortium’.The right to consortium would
include the company, care, help, comfort,
guidance, solace and affection of the
deceased, which is a loss to his family. With
respect to a spouse, it would include sexual
relations with the deceased spouse.
21.1. Spousal consortium is generally defined
as rights pertaining to the relationship of a
husband-wife which allows compensation to
the surviving spouse for loss of “company
society, corporation, 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
worldover have recognized that the value of
a child’s consortium far exceeds the
economic value of the compensation
awarded in the case of the death of a child.
Most jurisdictions therefore permit parents to
be awarded compensation under loss of
consortium on the death of a child. The
amount awarded to the parents is a
compensation for loss of the love, affection,
care and companionship of the deceased
child.
23. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial
legislation aimed at providing relief to the
victims or their families, in cases of genuine
claims. In case where a parents has lost
their minor child, or unmarried son of
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
27 2026:HHC:45843
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 vehi
cle accidents under the Act. A fe 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.
High Court of H.P.
48. Thus, the entitlement of the petitioners,
is, adjudicated, as under:
1. Loss of contribution = Rs. 32,13,030/-
2. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000.
3. Funeral expenses = Rs. 15,000/-.
4. Loss of consortium = Rs. 40,000 x 4 = Rs.
1,60,000/-.
Total amount of compensation= Rs. 34,03,030/-
49. The learned Tribunal has rightly awarded
interest at the rate of Rs. 7.5% per annum, as such, the
same is not liable to be interfered with.
50. Consequently, the present appeal is
dismissed, and the awarded amount is enhanced from
Rs. 33,97,440/- to Rs. 34,03,030/-. along with interest
@ 7.5%, per annum. However, the appellant-Insurance
Company is held liable to satisfy the award.
51. The award passed by the learned Tribunal
is modified in the above terms.
52. Memo of costs be prepared.
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS
28 2026:HHC:45843
53. Pending application(s), if any, are also
High Court of H.P.
disposed of.
54. Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh)
16.10.2026 Judge
(kalpana)
::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2026 13:11:32 :::CIS