STATE OF HP vs MEMO DEVI

Court
High Court of Himachal Pradesh

1 2026:HHC:14210
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
        FAO (MV) No.          :                 155 of 2014
th
 Reserved on  :            18    April, 2026
 
th
  
      Decided on    :            30    April, 2026
State of Himachal Pradesh                   .......Appellant
Versus
Memo Devi and Others            ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting?  Yes
For the appellant      :   Mr.   H.S.   Rawat,   Additional
Advocate General with Ms. Avni
Kochhar Mehta, Deputy Advocate
General.
For the respondents  :   Mr.   Dibendar   Ghosh,   Advocate,
for respondents No.1 to 5.
Mr.   Vishwas   Kaushal,   Advocate
vice Mr. Vivek Negi, Advocate for
respondent No.6. 
Mr.   B.M.   Chauhan,   Senior
Advocate with Mr. Amit Himalvi,
Advocate for respondent No.7.
Virender Singh, Judge
State of Himachal Pradesh through Secretary PWD
has preferred the present appeal, under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’),
against the award dated 03.07.2013, passed by learned Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P.
1
Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
2
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘the   MACT’),   in   M.A.C.   Petition
High Court of H.P.
No.66­S/2 of 2008, titled as ‘Memo Devi & Others versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others’.
2.   By way of award dated 03.07.2013, the learned
MACT has allowed the petition, filed by respondents No.1 to
5, for compensation, on account of death of their predecessor­
in­interest Money Ram, in a road side accident, having taken
place   on   21.05.2004,   involving   vehicle   No.HP08­0755
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), against the
respondents,   being   owners   and   insurer   of   the   offending
vehicle.
3. Vide award dated 03.07.2013, the learned MACT
has   awarded   compensation   of   Rs.9,48,500/­,   along   with
interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing
of   the   petition,   till   realization   of   the   whole   amount   from
respondent No.1.   Respondents No.1 and 2 have been held
liable,   jointly   and   severally,   to   pay   the   compensation,
however, the ultimate liability to pay the compensation to the
claimants   has   been   fastened   upon   respondent   No.   1
(appellant). 
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
3
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
High Court of H.P.
present  lis  are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner,
in which, they were referred to, by the learned MACT.  
5. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal,
before this Court, as emerge from the record, may be summed
up, as under:­
5.1. According   to   the   claim   petition,   predecessor­in­
interest of claimants Money Ram was working as Beldar in
HPPWD Division Chopal, on monthly salary of Rs.4890/­.  In
addition   to   this,   he   was   earning   Rs.2,000/­   from   the
agriculture pursuits.
5.2. On   21.05.2024,   Money   Ram,   along   with   other
labourers, was deputed on Fadiz­Dhabas road.   They were
taken to the spot, in the morning, in the offending vehicle
owned by respondent No.2, which was hired by HPPWD for
the purpose of transporting the workers.
5.3. According to the claimants, it was regular practice
to take the labourers/workmen to the site of work and bring
them back to Gumma in the same vehicle after carrying out
the work.
5.4. As per the claim petition, on the date of accident,
when   the   offending   vehicle   was   bringing   them   back   and
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
4
reached near Bethal, the driver of the offending vehicle was
High Court of H.P.
driving the same, in a rash and negligent manner and he
could   not   control   the   speed,   due   to   which,   the   offending
vehicle went off the road.  Consequently, 29 persons died on
the spot, along with Money Ram.  Driver and cleaner of the
offending vehicle, also died in the said accident. 
5.5. It   is   the   further   case   of   claimants   that   Money
Ram, at the time of accident, was aged about 30 years and he
was   working   as   Beldar   in   HPPWD   Division   Chopal.     His
income has been pleaded as Rs.4890/­ per month and in
addition to this, he was earning Rs.2,000/­ per month from
agricultural pursuits. 
5.6. The information regarding the accident was given
to Police Station Sadar Chopal, where, FIR No.58 of 2004,
dated 22.05.2004, has been registered.  Pleading their bright
past   and   bleak   future,   the   claimants   have   sought
compensation of Rs.15,00,000/­ from the respondents.
6. When put to notice, the claim petition has been
contested by the respondents.  Respondent No.1, has filed its
reply,   by   taking   the   preliminary   objections   that   the   claim
petition is not maintainable as cause of action, if any, for
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
5
filing the claim petition accrued only against driver, owner
High Court of H.P.
and insurer of the offending vehicle.
7. It has been pleaded that the accident, in question,
had taken place at 6.00 p.m. on 21.05.2004.  The offending
vehicle neither belongs to the State, nor, the same was hired
by the Department for carrying the labour to and fro.  All the
persons,   who   had   lost   their   lives,   voluntarily   boarded   the
truck in order to avoid payment of fair, which they used to
spend while traveling in bus.  The claimants earlier had filed
claim   petition   before   S.D.M­cum­Commissioner   under
Workmen’s Compensation Act, Chopal, which stood disposed
of by the SDM, for want of jurisdiction.
8. On merits, the factum of accident, as well as the
monthly   salary   of   Money   Ram   has   not   been   disputed.
Registration   of   FIR   has   also   been   admitted,   however,
according to the State, Money Ram has voluntarily boarded
the offending vehicle, without knowledge and consent of the
State.   The offending vehicle was not hired by the State for
transportation of labour.  Age of Money Ram, at the time of
accident, has been pleaded as 39 years and he was a work­
charge Beldar, drawing salary of Rs.4890/­ per month.
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
6
9. Lastly,   it   has   been   pleaded   that   the   offending
High Court of H.P.
vehicle was engaged by the Department, on daily basis, from
9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. w.e.f. 17.05.2004 to 21.05.2004 for
transporting the material.
10. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been
made to dismiss the petition.
11. Respondent   No.2   has   filed   separate   reply,   by
taking the preliminary objections that the claim petition is not
maintainable;   the   offending   vehicle   was   hired   by   the
Executive Engineer, HPPWD Chopal and the offending vehicle
was under the exclusive control of respondent No.1.  As such,
respondent No.2, has sought the exoneration to his liability to
pay the compensation.   According to respondent No. 2, the
driver   of   the   offending   vehicle   was   driving   the   same   from
17.05.2000 till the date of accident, as per the instructions of
respondent   No.1,   through   Executive   Engineer,   HPPWD
Chopal  and the  offending  vehicle  in question  was  insured
with respondent No.3, at the time of accident.
12. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have
mainly been denied for want of knowledge, by reasserting the
stand, as taken in the preliminary objections.   Factum of
accident has not been disputed, however, according to him,
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
7
the   driver   of   the   offending   vehicle   was   neither   rash   nor
High Court of H.P.
negligent.
13. Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has
filed separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections that
the   petition   is   not   maintainable   against   the   Insurance
Company, as the claimants have no cause of action to file the
same;   the   accident   had   taken   place,   when   the   offending
vehicle was hired by respondent No.1, to carry the laborers to
the work site and drop them back in the evening at their
respective places; the offending vehicle was registered and
being plied as goods carrier and the same cannot be used to
transport   the   passenger;   the   deceased   was   traveling   as
gratuitous passenger, as such, the Insurance Company is not
liable to pay the compensation.
14. According   to   the   Insurance   Company,   the
offending vehicle was being plied, in violation of the terms and
conditions of the insurance policy and the driver was not
having valid and effective driving license to drive the same.
The claim petition is stated to be collusive in nature, as the
same   has   been   filed   by   the   claimants,   in   collusion   with
respondents No.1 and 2.
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
8
15. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have
been denied, however, the factum of accident has not been
disputed.     Thus,   the   respondents   have   prayed   for   the
dismissal of the claim petition.
16. From   the   pleadings   of   the   parties,   the   learned
MACT   has   framed   the   following   issues,   vide   order   dated
30.08.2010:  
t<br>1. Whether the deceased Money Ram @ Mand Ram<br>died because of rash and negligent driving by<br>driver of the Vehicle No.HP08­0755, as alleged?
r<br>OPP
u
o<br>2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, whether<br>the petitioners are entitled to compensation. If<br>so, how much and from whom? OPP
C<br>3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR
h<br>4. Whether the deceased was traveling in the<br>vehicle in question as unauthorized passenger.<br>If so, its effect? OPR.
5. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was<br>driving the vehicle without any valid and<br>effective driving licence. If so, its effect? OPR­3
6. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven<br>at the relevant time in violation of the terms and<br>conditions of Insurance Policy? OPR­3
7. Relief.

17. Thereafter, the parties to the   lis   were directed to
adduce evidence.
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
9
18. After   the   closure   of   evidence   and   after   hearing
High Court of H.P.
learned counsel for the parties, the learned MACT has allowed
the claim petition, as referred to above.
19. Feeling aggrieved from the said award passed by
the  learned  MACT,  the  State   has  assailed  the  said  award
before this Court on the ground that the learned MACT has
not framed ‘proper issues’, as per the pleadings.  The award
has   also   been   assailed   on   the   ground   that   the   offending
vehicle was hired for transporting stones and grit, however,
the labourers used to board the offending vehicle to and fro,
to their homes to avoid payment of bus fare, despite the fact,
that regular bus service was available in the morning, as well
as, in the evening.
20. According   to   the   appellant­State,   the   learned
MACT has not considered the specific stand of the appellant
qua   the   fact   that   the   offending   vehicle   was   hired   for
transporting the material and the same was not hired to carry
the labourers.
21. The award has also been assailed on the ground
that the legal heirs of persons, who had lost their lives in the
said accident, have approached the SDM Chopal, under the
provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act.  When a specific
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
10
stand has been taken by the State that the death has not
High Court of H.P.
been caused during the course of employment, the matter
was   transferred   to   LAO­cum­Workmen   Compensation,
Commissioner South Zone, Shimla, where the said petitions
are still pending.  
22. The award has also been assailed on the ground
that the owner has wrongly taken the stand that the offending
vehicle   was   under   the   control   of   respondent   No.1,   since
17.05.2004.     The   driver   was   never   authorized   to   carry
labourers and he was driving the offending vehicle, as per the
instructions of Executive Engineer.
23. The findings of the learned MACT are stated to be
erroneous on the ground that it is not proved on the record
that the offending vehicle was under the control of State, at
the relevant time, or, the driver had transported the labourers
with implied or oral consent of the officers of the State.
24. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been
made to allow the appeal, by setting aside the award passed
by the learned MACT.
25. Per   contra,   Shri   Dibender   Ghosh,   Advocate,
appearing for the claimants has submitted that the appeal
sans merit and the same may kindly be dismissed.  He has
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
11
also submitted that the amount of compensation, awarded by
High Court of H.P.
the learned MACT, does not fall within the definition of ‘just
compensation’, as such, the same may kindly be enhanced.
26. It   is   worthwhile   to   record   herein   that   in   the
accident, in question, apart from the predecessor­in­interest
of the claimants, a number of persons had also expired and
their LRs had also filed the petitions for compensation.  Those
petitions were allowed by the learned MACT, by fastening the
liability to pay the compensation on the State Government.
27. Those awards were assailed by the State, by way
of FAO Nos.86 to 100, 632, 649 to 653, 676 and 677 of 2008.
The   said   appeals   were   disposed   of,   by   this   Court,   vide
common judgment dated 27.11.2013 and the State has been
treated as owner of the vehicle, at the relevant time.  Relevant
paragraphs   28   to   31   of   the   judgment   are   reproduced   as
under:­
“28. In view of overwhelming evidence adduced
by the claimants, the only conclusion which can
be drawn is that truck was hired by the HPPWD
for the construction of Shaloo­Dhawas road. The
truck was being driven under the instructions of
Junior Engineer. He used to instruct the labourers
to assemble at Gumma to facilitate their travelling
from Gumma to the site of work. They were also
being brought back to Gumma. Labourers were
residents of villages near Gumma. The truck used
to come from Gumma to the site of work in the
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
12
morning and used to go back to Gumma in the
evening.   The   labourers   were   residents   at   a
distance of 25 KMs  from the work site. Junior
Engineer had instructed the driver to carry the
labourers in the morning and evening. It has also
come in the evidence that labourers also used to
load   and   unload   stones   also.   The   truck   was
under the control of personnel of the HPPWD. The
HPPWD has rightly been treated as owner by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
High Court of H.P.
29. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in  
Zila Sahakari Kendrya Bank Maryadit v.
 2006 ACJ 2845,
Shahjadi Begum and others,
where   jeep   of   bank   alongwith   its   driver   was
requisitioned for election duty, have held that the
requisitioning authority was the employer. Their
Lordships have held as under:
“11. However, the term "employee" has not
been defined in the Act. The definition of
employer,   therefore,   embraces   within   its
fold   not   only   a   person   who   employs
another   either   permanently   or   on
temporary basis but also those who were
in control of the workman temporarily lent
or let on hire to them by the person with
whom   the   workman   has   entered   into   a
contract of service. It is, therefore, a broad
definition. 
12.   Para   13   corrected   vide   Official
Corrigendum No.F.3/Ed.B.J./7/2007 date
27­1­2007. Indisputably, the owner of the
jeep was bound to comply with the order
of requisition of a vehicle when the same
is required to be placed on election duty. If
the deceased was under the control of the
Bank herein and in effect and substance
under   the   control   of   Respondent   2,   the
Commissioner   of   Workmen's
Compensation   committed   jurisdictional
error in directing the appellant to deposit
the   amount   of   compensation.   The   High
Court, in that view of the matter, should
have,   in   our   considered   view,   taken   a
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
13
liberal view in the matter and condoned
the   delay   in   filing   the   appeal   as   also
depositing   the   awarded   amount   in   the
court.   If   the   order   passed   by   the
Commissioner   of Workmen's Compensation
was wholly without jurisdiction, the same
was a nullity. It was a coram non judice. It
has   been   found   as   of   fact   by   the
Commissioner   of Workmen's Compensation
that the deceased was under the complete
control of the requisitioning authority. He
would, therefore, be the employer. As the
jeep   was   requisitioned   under   a   statute,
the Bank had no other option but to put
the   same   under   the   services   of   the
requisitioning   authority.   In   terms   of
requisition, the services of the deceased,
thus,   were   also   placed.   The   employer,
thus,   would   be   the   requisitioning
authority, namely, the State of M.P.
High Court of H.P.
13. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
the requisitioning authority is liable to pay
the amount of compensation. Although the
State   of   M.P.   is   not   a   party   before   us,
keeping in view the fact that Respondent 2
was   its   employee   and   a   jeep   was
requisitioned   under   the   authority   of   the
District Election Officer, interest of justice
would be subserved if the appellant herein
is directed to be reimbursed in respect of
the   amount   which   has   already   been
deposited by him in terms of the order of
the   Commissioner   of   Workmen's
Compensation. The amount deposited by
the appellant shall be returned to it within
eight weeks from today failing which the
same shall carry interest at the rate of 6%
per   annum   from   the   said   date   till   the
actual payment.”
30. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Deepa Devi and
others, 2008 ACJ 705 have held that when the
car was requisitioned by the Election Department
save   and   except   for   legal   ownership,   for   all
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
14
intents   and   purport   the   registered   owner   loses
entire control over the vehicle and the State alone
is liable. Their Lordships have held as under:
High Court of H.P.
“8.   The   1988   Act   was   enacted   to
consolidate and amend the law relating to
motor vehicles. It repeals and replaces the
Motor   Vehicles   Act,   1939   (for   short   "the
1939 Act"). 9. "Owner" has been defined in
Section 2(19) of the 1939 Act to mean: "In
this   Act,   unless   the   context   otherwise
requires, 
   *
(19) "owner" means, where the person in
possession of a motor vehicle is a minor,
the guardian of such minor, and in relation
to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a
higher purchase agreement, the person in
possession   of   the   vehicle   under   that
agreement;" However, the said definition
underwent a change by reason of Section
2(30) of the 1988 Act providing: "
In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,
    *
(30)   "owner"   means   a   person   in   whose
name a motor vehicle stands registered,
and  where  such person is  a minor, the
guardian of such minor, and in relation to
a motor vehicle which is the subject of a
hire­purchase,   agreement,   or   an
agreement   of   lease   or   an   agreement   of
hypothecation, the person in possession of
the vehicle under that agreement;" 
10. Parliament either under the 1939 Act
or   the   1988   Act   did   not   take   into
consideration a situation of this nature. No
doubt, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 continued
to be the registered owner of the vehicle
despite   the   fact   that   the   same   was
requisitioned by the District Magistrate in
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
15
exercise   of   its   power   conferred   upon   it
under the Representation of People Act. A
vehicle   is   requisitioned   by   a   statutory
authority,   pursuant   to   the   provisions
contained in a statute. The owner of the
vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order
of requisition of the vehicle by the Deputy
Commissioner. While the vehicle remains
under   requisition,   the   owner   does   not
exercise any control thereover. The driver
may still be the employee of the owner of
the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the
direction of the officer of the State, who is
put in­charge thereof. Save and except for
legal ownership, for all intent and purport,
the registered owner of the vehicle loses
entire control thereover. He has no say as
to whether the vehicle should be driven at
a given point of time or not. He cannot ask
the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad
road. He or the driver could not possibly
say that the vehicle would not be driven in
the night. The purpose of requisition is to
use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle
remains   under   the   control   of   the   State
and/   or   its   officers,   the   owner   is   only
entitled   to   payment   of   compensation
therefor in terms of the Act but he cannot
not exercise any control thereupon. In a
situation of this nature, this Court must
proceed   on   the   presumption   that   the
Parliament   while   enacting   the   1988   Act
did not envisage such a situation. If in a
given   situation,   the   statutory   definitions
contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given
effect   to   in   letter   and   spirit,   the   same
should   be   understood   from   the   common
sense point of view.
High Court of H.P.
15.   In   Kailash   Nath   Kothari   (supra),
however, this Court in a case, where a bus
was given on lease by the owner of the
vehicle Shri Sanjay Kumar in favour of the
Rajasthan   State   Road   Transport
Corporation, held that when an accident
takes place when the bus was plied under
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
16
the control of the Corporation, it was the
Corporation alone who would be liable for
payment of compensation, stating:
High Court of H.P.
"Driver   of   the   bus,   even   though   an
employee   of   the   owner,   was   at   the
relevant time performing his duties under
the order and command of the conductor
of RSRTC for operation of the bus. So far
as the passengers of the ill­fated bus are
concerned,   their   privity   of   contract   was
only with the RSRTC to whom they had
paid the fare for travelling in that bus and
their   safety   therefore   became   the
responsibility   of   the   RSRTC   while
travelling in the bus. They had no privity
of contract with Shri Sanjay Kumar, the
owner of the bus at all. Had it been a case
only of transfer of services of the driver
and not of transfer of control of the driver
from the owner to RSRTC, the matter may
have   been   somewhat   different.   But   on
facts   in   this   case   and   in   view   of
Conditions 4 to 7 of the agreement (supra),
the RSRTC must be held to be vicariously
liable for the tort committed by the driver
while plying the bus under contract of the
RSRTC.   The   general   proposition   of   law
and   the   presumption   arising   therefrom
that an employer, that is the person who
has the right to hire and fire the employee,
is generally responsible vicariously for the
tort committed by the employee concerned
during the course of his employment and
within   the   scope   of   his   authority,   is   a
rebuttable   presumption.   If   the   original
employer is able to establish that when
the servant was lent, the effective control
over him was also transferred to the hirer,
the original owner can avoid his liability
and the temporary employer or the hirer,
as   the   case   may   be,   must   be   held
vicariously liable for the tort committed by
the employee concerned in the course of
his employment while under the command
and  control  of  the  hirer notwithstanding
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
17
the fact that the driver would continue to
be on the payroll of the original owner. The
proposition based on the general principle
as noticed above is adequately rebutted in
this   case   not   only   on   the   basis   of   the
evidence led by the parties but also on the
basis of Conditions 6 and 7 (supra), which
go to show that the owner had not merely
transferred the services of the driver to the
RSRTC but actual control and the driver
was to act under the instructions, control
and command of the conductor and other
officers of the RSRTC." 
High Court of H.P.
We may also notice at this stage certain
judgments of some High Courts. 
16. In The National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Durdadahya   Kumar   Samal   and   Others
[1988 (2) T.A.C. 25] where the vehicle was
requisitioned by the Collector for election
duty, the High Court of Orissa held:
"In   a   vehicle   requisitioned,   the   driver
remains under the control of the Collector
and by such driving the vehicle he can be
accepted to have been employed by the
Collector.   Thus,   the   Collector   would   be
vicariously liable for the act of the driver in
the present case." 
[See also New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
S. Ramulamma and others 1989 ACJ 596]
17.   In   Chief   Officer,   Bhavnagar
Municipality   and   another   v.   Bachubhai
Arjanbhai and others [AIR 1996 Gujarat
51], the High Court of Gujarat held:
"7. The facts on record clearly indicate that
the vehicle in question which belonged to
the State of Gujarat was entrusted to the
Municipality for distribution of water to the
citizens.   It   was   implicit   in   allowing   the
vehicle being used for such purpose that
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
18
the   State   of   Gujarat   which   owned   the
vehicle also caused or allowed any driver
of the Municipality who was engaged in
the  work of  distribution  of  water to  the
citizens,   to   use   motor   vehicle   for   the
purpose. Therefore, when the vehicle was
driven   by   the   driver   of   the   Municipality
and   the   accident   resulted   due   to   his
negligence,   the   insurer   of   the   vehicle
became   liable   to   pay   the   compensation
under   the   provisions   of   the   Act.   It   is,
therefore,   held   that   the   State,   as   the
owner of the vehicle and the respondent
Insurance   Company   as   its   insurer   were
also   liable   to   pay   the   compensation
awarded by the Tribunal." 
High Court of H.P.
18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that
the State shall be liable to pay the amount
of compensation to the claimants and not
the   registered   owner   of   the   vehicle   and
consequently the appellant herein.
31. Motor Accident  Claims  Tribunal  has  rightly
held the appellant liable to pay the compensation.
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has also correctly
assessed the income of the deceased in all the
cases and applied the appropriate multiplier.”
28. Even otherwise, a specific stand has been taken
by   the   owner,   in   preliminary   objection   No.2,   that   the
offending vehicle was hired by Executive Engineer, HPPWD,
through truck operators Union, Chopal. The State has taken
a   stand   in   the   reply   before   the   learned   MACT   that   the
offending vehicle was not hired by the State for transportation
of the labourers, however, hiring of the offending vehicle has
not been disputed.  
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
19
29. RW­2,   Balbir   Singh,   Junior   Engineer,   when
High Court of H.P.
appeared in the witness­box, has deposed that the authorities
of Sub­Division Nerwa, had hired the offending vehicle for
transportation  of  stones for the  work w.e.f. 17.05.2004  to
21.05.2004.  According to him, the vehicle was hired for being
used from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m.  He has also deposed that
the labourers used to report at the work site at 9.00 a.m. and
Department   has   not   made   any   arrangement   for
transportation of the labour.  However, in the opening lines of
his cross­examination, he has admitted that no agreement in
writing   was   executed   with   the   truck   union.     He   has   also
admitted that no such writing was executed that the truck
was to remain with the Department from 9.00 a.m. to 5.00
p.m. only.   This witness has deposed that deceased Money
Ram was his Beldar and he was deputed at the work site.  He
has also admitted that the offending vehicle was being plied
under their instructions.  The tone and tenor of RW­2 clearly
depicts that the offending vehicle was hired by them w.e.f.
17.05.2004 to 21.05.2004, the day, when, the accident had
taken place.  
30. Owner of the offending vehicle also appeared in
the   witness­box   as   RW­1   and   deposed   that   the   offending
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
20
vehicle, at the relevant time, was with PWD, as, they had to
High Court of H.P.
transport the grit and stones, to the construction site and
that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the same
under the directions of the PWD authorities.   According to
this witness, the place, where, the work was executed by the
PWD authorities, is about 20 kilometers from truck Union.
Till  the  time,  vehicle  remained  with  PWD  authorities,  this
witness   had   no   control   over   the   same.     He   has   further
deposed that he has not authorized the driver to permit the
passengers to board the same.  He has feigned his ignorance
about the instructions, if any, issued by the PWD authorities
to the driver.
31. In   view   of   the   above   depositions   as   discussed
above, as well as, in view of the decision rendered by this
Court in FAO No.86 of 2008, titled as State of H.P. versus
Fundi Devi & Others, along with its connected matters, there
is   no   substance   in   the   submissions   made   by   learned
Additional Advocate General that the State is not liable to pay
the compensation, whereas, it is proved, in the case referred
above,   that   the   offending   vehicle   was   under   the   exclusive
control of the State, when the accident had taken place.  As
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
21
such,   State   has   rightly   been   held   liable   to   pay   the
High Court of H.P.
compensation. 
32. It is no longer   res integra   that  the provisions of
M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour
   
of the Court/Tribunal should be to provide ‘just compensation’
to the claimants, The proceedings, under the M.V. Act, are
summary in nature, where, the liability of tort feasor is to be
fixed, on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and strict
rules of evidence are not applicable.
33. In case ‘just compensation’ is not awarded, this
Court can enhance the awarded the amount, by exercising
the powers under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC, even if, the
claimants have not filed appeal/cross­objections.   Moreover,
there is no legal requirement for the claimants to specify a
particular   amount   of   compensation   in   the   claim   petition.
Hence, even in the absence of appeal/cross­objections, on
behalf   of   the   claimants,   the   awarded   amount   can   be
enhanced, by this Court. 
34. Being guided by the settled proposition of law, this
Court would now straightaway proceed to determine, as to
whether   the   amount   of   compensation,   which   has   been
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
22
awarded to the claimants, falls within the definition of ‘just
High Court of H.P.
compensation’ or the same is liable to be enhanced.
35. As stated above, the learned MACT, in the present
case has awarded a sum of Rs.9,48,500/­.   Although, the
claimants   have   not   filed   the   appeal,   but,   this   does   not
preclude this Court to assess the fact whether the amount of
compensation falls within the definition of just compensation
or not.
36. As   per   the   claim   petition,   the   age   of   deceased
Money Ram, at the time of accident/death, was 30 years,
however,   in   the   postmortem   report,   his   age   has   been
mentioned as 37 years.  As per the date of birth certificate,
Ex.PW­5/A, the date of birth of the deceased was 12.11.1965
and the accident had taken place on 21.05.2004.   As such,
the age of the deceased has rightly been held to be proved as
39 years.  
37. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in  Sarla   Verma  versus  Delhi Transport Corporation
  the
and   Another,   (2009)   6   Supreme   Court   Cases   121,
learned MACT has rightly applied the multiplier of 15, in the
present case.  
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
23
38. So far as the income of the deceased during his
High Court of H.P.
life time is concerned, as per the claimants, he was getting
Rs.4890/­   as   salary   from   the   PWD   and   also   earning
Rs.2,000/­ per month, from the agricultural pursuits.
39. Claimant No.1, Memo Devi, while appearing in the
witness­box, has deposed that her husband was working with
PWD   and   earning   Rs.5,000/­   per   month,   by   working   as
Beldar.     Apart   from   this,   he   was   earning   Rs.2,000/­   per
month from agricultural pursuits.  
40. As per the stand of the employer, i.e., respondent
No.1, salary of Money Ram was Rs.4890/­ per month.   His
salary certificate has been proved as Ex.PW­3/A.   Learned
MACT has taken the salary of Money Ram, during his life time
as Rs.7612/­.  This has been done by the learned MACT, on
the basis of the fact that there is possibility that his salary
would be double, at the time of retirement.  
41. The   said   approach   of   learned   MACT   is   not
sustainable in the eyes of law.  His salary has proved to be
Rs.4890/­ per month and it cannot be expected from a full
time worker to earn from agricultural pursuits.  However, in
view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in   National
 vs. 
Insurance Company Limited Pranay Sethi and others,
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
24
(2017) 16 SCC 680 , 50% increase is liable to be given in the
High Court of H.P.
income of Money Ram, on account of his future prospects, as
he was working in public sector.   Thus, by adding 50%, on
account   of   future   prospects,   in   his   earnings,   his   monthly
income comes to Rs.7,335/­ (Rs.4,890/­ + Rs.2,445/­).  
th
42. Out of the said amount, ¼  amount is liable to be
deducted, towards his personal expenses, had he been alive.
Thus,   his   contribution   towards   the   family   comes   to
Rs.5501/­, per month.  As such, the amount of compensation
awarded to the claimants on account of loss of dependency,
comes to Rs.5501/­ x 12 = Rs.66,012/­ per annum.
43. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in  Pranay Sethi ’s, the claimants are also held entitled to the
compensation under the conventional heads, namely, loss of
estate,  loss   of  consortium  and   funeral  expenses,   which   is
liable to be enhanced at the rate of 10%, in every three years.
The   judgment   in   Pranay   Sethi ’s   case   was   passed   on
31.10.2017,   whereas,   the   learned   MACT   has   given   lesser
amount under the head loss of estate, funeral charges, as well
as, consortium.
44. The   learned   MACT   has   given   a   sum   of
Rs.10,000/­, as transportation charges, which is not liable to
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
25
be paid to the claimants, in view of the dictum of the Hon’ble
High Court of H.P.
Supreme Court, in Pranay Sethi’s case.
45. So far as the consortium is concerned, the learned
MACT has given only to petitioner No.1, whereas, in view of
the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in   Magma General
Insurance   Company   Limited   vs.   Nanu   Ram   @   Chuhru
Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , all the claimants are
also entitled to the compensation, under the head ‘loss of
consortium’.
46. Consequently, the entitlement of all the claimants
is liable to be reassessed, by this Court, which is as under:­
     1. Loss of contribution =  Rs.9,90,180/­ (` 66,012/­x15)
` ` `
2.Loss of estate = 19,500/­ ( 15,000/­ +  4500/­)
3.Funeral expenses= ` 19,500/­ ( ` 15,000/­ +  ` 4500/­)
4.Loss of consortium= ` 2,60,000/­( ` 40,000x5+  ` 60,000/­)
Total=  Rs.9,90,180+19,500+19,500+
Rs.2,60,000=Rs.12,89,180/­
47. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by
the learned MACT is liable to be enhanced.
48. Consequently,   the   present   appeal   is   dismissed,
however,   the   awarded   amount   is   enhanced,   in   the   above
terms.   The claimants are held entitled for the amount of
Rs.12,89,180/­, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of
filing   of   petition   till   the   realization   of   amount,   from
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS

2026:HHC:14210
26
respondent No.1.   The award is inclusive of the amount, if
High Court of H.P.
any,   awarded   under   Section   140   of   the   Act.     The   award
passed by the learned MACT is modified in the above terms.  
49. Memo of costs be prepared.
50.  Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
Record be sent back.
                          (Virender Singh)
April 30, 2026  ( ps )        Judge
::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 14:49:40 :::CIS