SATYA DILTA vs IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

2026:HHC:30727
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
FAO (MV) No. 417 of 2015
Reserved on: 15.07.2026
Date of decision: 27 .07.2026
Date of uploading on website:
.07.2026 27
________________________________________________
Satya Dilta …..Appellant
Versus
IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
……Respondents
________________________________________________
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.
________________________________________________
For the appellant: Mr. Sameer Thakur, Advocate.
For the respondents: Respondent No. 1 ex parte.
Mr. Davinder Singh Nainta,
Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Sushil Kukreja, Judge.
The instant appeal has been maintained by
appellant, who was the petitioner before the learned Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (III), Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter
referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) under Section 173 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against
impugned award, dated 07.08.2015, passed by the learned
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
2
Tribunal, whereby MAC Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2012, filed by
High Court of H.P.
the petitioner was allowed against the respondents and she
was held entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.
7,19,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of filing of the petition till realization of the entire
amount. Respondent No. 1, being insurer, was directed to
indemnify the award.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on
08.11.2011, Mohit Dilta (since deceased) who was the son of
the petitioner, boarded the vehicle bearing registration No.
HP-10A-3281 from Khalini to Chandigarh. When the said
vehicle reached near Kanlog, the same rolled down and fell
into a deep gorge, as a result of which, he got seriously
injured and succumbed to death. The accident had occurred
due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said vehicle,
who also died in the accident. According to the petitioner,
the deceased was an agriculturist and horticulturist and also
running the business of selling empty apple boxes on
commission basis and was earning more than Rs. 50,000/-
per month from all sources. On the basis of these
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
3
submissions, the petitioner filed the claim petition under
High Court of H.P.
Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation to the tune of
Rs. 50,00,000/- alongwith interest.
3. Respondent No. 1, contested the petition by filing
reply, wherein, preliminary objections qua maintainability,THA
the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy without having a valid and
effective registration-cum-fitness certificate and route permit
and the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving
licence, have been taken. On merits, it has been denied that
the deceased was agriculturist and horticulturist and was
doing the business of selling empty boxes of apple on
commission basis. It has further been denied that the
monthly income of the deceased was Rs. 50,000/-.
4. Respondent No. 2 by filing reply took preliminary
objections qua maintainability and cause of action. On
merits, contents of the claim petition have been denied for
want of knowledge.
5. On 29.05.2014, the learned Tribunal below had
framed the following issues for consideration and
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
4
adjudication:
High Court of H.P.
“1. Whether deceased Mohit Dilta received
fatal injury and died on account of rash and
negligent driving on the part of respondent
No. 2? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative,
whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation and if so to what amount and
from whom? OPP
3. Whether offending vehicle was being plied
by respondent No. 2 in contravention of the
terms and conditions of the insurance
policy? OPR
4. Whether the driver of the vehicle did not
possess a valid and effective driving licence
at the time of this accident? OPR
5. Whether this petition is bad for non-joinder
and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR
6. Whether the petitioner is stopped to file the
present petition due to her own acts, deeds,
conduct and acquiescence etc? OPR
7. Relief.”

6. After the parties led evidence and after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties, the petition was allowed
and the petitioner was held entitled for compensation to the
tune of Rs. 7,19,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the
entire amount. Respondent No. 1, being insurer, was
directed to indemnify the award.
7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
5
preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award
High Court of H.P.
dated 07.08.2015 for enhancement of the same.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended
that the compensation awarded by learned Tribunal below is
on a very lower side, as the deceased was the joint owner of
30 bighas of land as per Jamabandis, Ext. PW-2/C to C-3
and the deceased had grown approximately 1500 apple
plants on the joint land and was producing 4000 apple boxes
annually. Thus, the deceased was earning about Rs.
45,000/- monthly from selling apples and was also earning
Rs. 5,000/- monthly from selling empty apple cartons.
However, learned Tribunal below has taken his income as
Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is on a very lower side. He
further contended that age of the deceased has been
wrongly taken by the learned Tribunal below as 33 years,
whereas, at the time of accident, the deceased was 23 years
of age. He also contended that a wrong multiplier of 11 has
been taken by the learned Tribunal below, whereas, a
multiplier of 18 was to be applied while calculating the
compensation. Therefore, he prayed that present appeal
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
6
may be allowed and the compensation, as awarded, may be
High Court of H.P.
enhanced.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the
appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and have
carefully examined the entire records.
10. It is not in dispute that the Mohit Dilta ( since
deceased) received fatal injuries and died in a motor
accident occurred on 08.11.2011 at Kanlog Nullah and the
vehicle involved in the accident was a Scorpio bearing
registration No. HP-10A-3281, owned by respondent No. 2,
Surender Dutta and insured with respondent No. 1/IFFCO
Tokio General Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal below
had categorically held that the deceased died on account of
rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the
offending vehicle, i.e. Scorpio.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the amount of compensation, awarded by the learned
Tribunal below on account of death of the deceased is highly
inadequate and the learned Tribunal below had erred in
taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/-, as
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
7
the deceased was working as his income from all the
High Court of H.P.
sources was more than Rs. 50,000/- per month.
12. Now the question which arises for consideration
before this Court is as to what income should be assessed in
the present case. In National Insurance Company Limited
Versus Pranay Sethi & others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 , a
Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the
compensation has to be determined on the foundation of
fairness, reasonableness and equitability on acceptable legal
standard because such determination can never be in
arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect. The aim is to
achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to arithmetical
precision on the basis of materials brought on record in an
individual case. Para-55 of the judgment is reproduced as
under:-
“ 55. Section 168 of the Act deals with the concept of “just
compensation” and the same has to be determined on the
foundation of fairness, reasonableness and equitability on
acceptable legal standard because such determination can
never be in arithmetical exactitude. It can never be perfect.
The aim is to achieve an acceptable degree of proximity to
arithmetical precision on the basis of materials brought on
record in an individual case. The conception of “just
compensation” has to be viewed through the prism of
fairness, reasonableness and non- violation of the principle
of equitability. In a case of death, the legal heirs of the
claimants cannot expect a windfall. Simultaneously, the
compensation granted cannot be an apology for
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
8
compensation. It cannot be a pittance. Though the
discretion vested in the tribunal is quite wide, yet it is
obligatory on the part of the tribunal to be guided by the
expression, that is, “just compensation”. The determination
has to be on the foundation of evidence brought on record
as regards the age and income of the deceased and
thereafter the apposite multiplier to be applied. The formula
relating to multiplier has been clearly stated in Sarla Verma
(supra) and it has been approved in Reshma Kumari
(supra). The age and income, as stated earlier, have to be
established by adducing evidence. The tribunal and the
Courts have to bear in mind that the basic principle lies in
pragmatic computation which is in proximity to reality. It is a
well accepted norm that money cannot substitute a life lost
but an effort has to be made for grant of just compensation
having uniformity of approach. There has to be a balance
between the two extremes, that is, a windfall and the
pittance, a bonanza and the modicum. In such an
adjudication, the duty of the tribunal and the Courts is
difficult and hence, an endeavour has been made by this
Court for standardization which in its ambit includes addition
of future prospects on the proven income at present. As far
as future prospects are concerned, there has been
standardization keeping in view the principle of certainty,
stability and consistency. We approve the principle of
“standardization” so that a specific and certain multiplicand
is determined for applying the multiplier on the basis of
age.”
High Court of H.P.
13. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal below
had taken notional income of the deceased at Rs. 6,000/- per
month. In order to prove her case, petitioner Satya Dilta
appeared in the witness box as PW-2 and deposed that
deceased Mohit Dilta was her only son, who died in an
accident on 08.11.2011, while travelling in vehicle bearing
registration No. HP-10A-3281 at Kanlog Nullah , as the
aforesaid vehicle was being driven by its driver in rash and
negligent manner. In the aforesaid accident, Anshul Dutta
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
9
also died on the spot alongwith her son. As per this witness,
High Court of H.P.
her son was agriculturist and horticulturist and in addition to
this, he was also doing the business of selling empty apple
boxes on commission basis and his income was Rs. 50,000/-
per month.
14. However, except for the bald statement of the
petitioner, Satya Dilta, no evidence has been led to prove
that income of the deceased was more than Rs. 50,000/- per
month at the time of his death. Merely from the copy of
Jamabandies, Exts. PW-2/C to PW-2/C-3 placed on record,
the income of the deceased cannot be assessed. No income
tax return has been placed on record by the petitioner with
respect to income of the deceased. There is also no
evidence on record that the deceased was also doing the
business of selling empty apple boxes on commission basis.
In fact there is no cogent and satisfactory evidence on record
to suggest that the deceased was earning more than Rs.
50,000/- per month. However, the notional income of the
deceased in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month, as taken by
learned Tribunal below is on the lower side. Since the
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
10
deceased was an agriculturist and horticulturist and the
High Court of H.P.
accident had taken place in the year 2011, his income can
be taken at Rs. 8,000/- per month.
15. It has further been held in Pranay Sethi’s case
that while determining the income, in case the deceased was
self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40
years, an addition of 40% of the established income to the
income of the deceased towards future prospects should be
made. Paras 59.3 and 59.4 of the said judgment read as
follows:-
“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 self-employed 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.”
16. In the instant case, at the time of accident, the
deceased was aged about 23 years as such in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
11
(supra), an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of
High Court of H.P.
the deceased, in this appeal, can be made towards future
prospects.
17. In Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi
Transport Corporation and another, 2009) 6 SCC 121 , the
Apex Court, on the question of deduction towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased held that, the
personal and living expenses of the deceased should be
deducted from his monthly income, to arrive at the
contribution to the dependents. Where the deceased was
married, the deduction towards personal and living expenses
of the deceased should be one-third where the number of
dependent family members is 2 to 3; one-fourth where the
number of dependent family members is 4 to 6; and one-fifth
where the number of dependent family members exceeds 6.
In regard to bachelors, normally, 50% is deducted as
personal and living expenses, because it is assumed that a
bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even
otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married
in a short time, in which event the contribution to the
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
12
parent(s) and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further,
High Court of H.P.
subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have
his own income and will not be considered as a dependent
and the mother alone will be considered as a dependent. In
the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters
will not be considered as dependents, because they will
either be independent and earning, or married, or be
dependent on the father. Thus, even if the deceased is
survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be
considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as
the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as
the contribution to the family.
18. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Amrit Bhanu Shali and others Versus
National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2012)
11 SCC 738 , held that the selection of multiplier is based on
the age of the deceased and not on the basis of the age of
dependent. Paras 15 & 16 of the judgment reproduced as
follows:-
“15. The selection of multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased and not on the basis of the age of dependent.
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
13
There may be a number of dependents of the deceased
whose age may be different and, therefore, the age of
dependents has no nexus with the computation of
compensation.
16. In the case of Sarla Verma (supra) this Court held that
the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in
Column (4) of the table of the said judgment which starts
with an operative multiplier of 18. As the age of the
deceased at the time of the death was 26 years, the
multiplier of 17 ought to have been applied. The Tribunal
taking into consideration the age of the deceased rightly
applied the multiplier of 17 but the High Court committed a
serious error by not giving the benefit of multiplier of 17
and brining it down to the multiplier of 13.”
High Court of H.P.
19 . M.Mansoor and another Versus United India
Insurance Company Limited and another, (2013) 15 SCC
603 was a case where the deceased was a bachelor of 24
years of age and the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the
selection of the multiplier is based on the age of the
deceased and not the age of the dependents. Para-13 of the
judgment reads as under:-
“13. The Tribunal adopted the multiplier of 17 and the
High Court determined the multiplier as 12 on the
basis of the age of the parents/claimants. This Court
in the decision in Amrit Bhanu Shali & Ors. vs.
National Insurance Company Limited & Ors. (2012)
11 SCC 738 held as follows :
“15. The selection of multiplier is based on
the age of the deceased and not on the basis of
the age of the dependent. There may be a number
of dependents of the deceased whose age may be
different and, therefore, the age of the dependents
has no nexus with the computation of
compensation.”
20. In Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) also, it has
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
14
been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the age of the
High Court of H.P.
deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier.
Paras 42 and 59.7 of the said judgment reproduced as
under:-
“42. As far as the multiplier is concerned, the claims
tribunal and the Courts shall be guided by Step 2 that finds
place in paragraph 19 of Sarla Verma read with paragraph
42 of the said judgment. For the sake of completeness,
paragraph 42 is extracted below :-
“42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used
should be as mentioned in Column (4) of the table
above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok
Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative
multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to
25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that
is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M- 16 for 31 to 35 years, M-
15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-
13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for
every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9
for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for
66 to 70 years.”
59.7. The age of the deceased should be the basis for
applying the multiplier.
(emphasis supplied)”
21. As per the matriculation certificate of the
deceased, Ext. PW-2/B placed on record, the date of birth of
the deceased was 31.03.1988, as such, as such, at the time
of accident, he was about 23 years of age. Therefore, in the
light of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, the
multiplier of ‘11’ applied by the Tribunal in the instant case is
not correct and proper, whereas, the correct multiplier in the
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
15
instant case would be “18”. Thus, after fixing the notional
High Court of H.P.
monthly income of the deceased at Rs. 8,000/- and adding
40% of the monthly income towards future prospects, the
amount comes to Rs. 11,200/- (8,000/- + 3200 = 11,200).
Since the deceased was a bachelor at the time of the
accident, 50% of the amount has to be deducted towards
his personal expenses. By deducting 50% towards the
personal and living expenses of the deceased, the amount
comes to Rs. 5,600/- per month. By applying the multiplier of
‘18’ as per the settled law, the compensation under the head
12,09,600/- (5,600 x 12 x
loss of dependency is re-fixed as Rs.
18).
22. In Magma General Insurance Company
Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others,
reported in (2018) 18 Supreme Court Cases 130, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that consortium is not
limited to spousal consortium and it also includes parental
consortium as well as filial consortium. The relevant portion
of the aforesaid judgment reads 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
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
16
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:
High Court of H.P.
21.1. Spousal consortium is general
defined as rights pertaining to the
relationship of a husband-wife which allows
compensation o 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 love, affection, care and
companionship of the deceased child.”
23. While placing reliance upon the judgment passed
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
17
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra),
High Court of H.P.
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sunita & ors. Vs. United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., Civil Appeal No.9538 of
2025 , decided on July 17, 2025, had enhanced the
compensation under the conventional heads @ 10% after a
span of every three years w.e.f. the year 2017 and held as
follows:-
“20. Regarding the monthly income of the
deceased, we concur with the view taken by the
Courts below in assessing the same to be
Rs.12,000/- per month, for there being no error
therein. Hence, in awarding compensation which is
just and fair, we are inclined to increase the amount
awarded under the conventional heads, namely, loss
of estate, loss of consortium, and funeral expenses
by 10% adverting to the settled principle of law laid
down by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Pranay Sethi, that such amount should be revised
every three years.”
24. Accordingly in view of the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s as well as
Sunita’s cases (supra), by enhancing the compensation
under the conventional heads @ 10%, after every three
years from the year 2017, the petitioner is entitled to loss of
estate at Rs. 19,965/-, funeral expenses at Rs.19,965/-.
Petitioner, being mother of the deceased, is also entitled to
filial consortium of Rs. 53,240/-. Accordingly, the total
::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS

2026:HHC:30727
18
amount of compensation comes out as under:-
High Court of H.P.
Head Amount
(i) Loss of dependency : Rs. 12,09,600/-
(ii) Loss of Estate : Rs.19,965/-
(iii) Funeral Expenses : Rs.19,965/-
(iv) Filial consortium : Rs.53,240/-
Total compensation awarded : Rs.13,02,770/-
25. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion
made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
award dated 07.08.2015, passed by learned Tribunal below,
is modified in the aforesaid terms. Rest of the terms of the
impugned award, including the interest part, shall remain
same.
The appeal stands disposed of in the above
terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

( Sushil Kukreja )
Judge
th
27 July, 2026
(raman)

::: Downloaded on - 27/07/2026 18:08:10 :::CIS