Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 31
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SATYEN VAIDYA, J.
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Lekhika and Ors. – Respondents
FAO No. 449 of 2017
Decided On : 07-04-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Pranav Shyam, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. P. M. Negi, Advocate, Mr. Lakshay Thakur, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the Tribunal's findings on negligence and compensation calculation, emphasizing the importance of established legal principles in assessing damages for loss of dependency.
Headnote:
(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Claim for compensation due to death in motor vehicle accident - Claimants, as legal heirs, sought compensation for the death of Sh. Vikram Singh resulting from an accident attributed to negligent driving - Tribunal awarded Rs. 68,36,618/- with interest @ 9% per annum - Insurer contested liability and quantum of compensation. (Paras 2 - 9 , 10-20)
(B) Negligence - The court found sufficient evidence of rash and negligent driving, rejecting the insurer's claims of sudden appearance of cattle as the sole cause of the accident - The driver's failure to maintain control due to high speed was emphasized. (Paras 12 - 16 )
(C) Quantum of Compensation - The Tribunal's assessment of the deceased's income and deductions for personal expenses were upheld, with specific references to established legal principles regarding loss of dependency and future prospects. (Paras 17 - 20 )
Result: Appeal partly allowed; award modified.
Judgment :
(Satyen Vaidya, J.)
The instant appeal has been filed by appellant against award dated 24.11.2016, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (IV), Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in MAC Petition No. 1-R/2 of 2015.
2. Respondents No. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as ‘claimants’), in the capacity of legal heirs and dependents, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for grant of compensation on account of the death of Sh. Vikram Singh as the result of motor vehicle accident.
3. It was alleged that Sh. Vikram Singh had died in a motor vehicle accident involving vehicle No. HP-10A- 5266 (Ford Figo Car). As per claimants, on 18.10.2014, Sh. Vikram Singh was returning from Chamba to Shimla by travelling in vehicle No. HP-10A-5266. At about 12:15 AM, at place Khedru in District Hamirpur, H.P, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of Sh. Vikram Singh.
4. The accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 7 (hereinafter referred to as ‘driver’)
5. The vehicle involved in an accident was owned by respondent No.6 (hereinafter referred to as ‘owner’) and was insured by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurer’).
6. The deceased Sh. Vikram Singh was stated to be aged about 47 years at the time of accident. He was working as a D.P.E. in Girls Senior Secondary School, Badshal, District Shimla, H.P. and was drawing monthly salary of Rs. 50,940/-. As per claimants, the deceased Vikram Singh was the only bread earner of the family and all the claimants were, thus, totally dependent upon him.
7. The owner and driver filed their joint reply. The negligence on the part of the driver was specifically denied. It was submitted that the accident had taken place on account of sudden appearance of stray cattle in front of the vehicle. It was submitted that had the cow not appeared in front of the vehicle the accident would not have taken place. The owner further disclosed the factum of existence of policy of insurance of the vehicle for the period 08.03.2014 to 07.03.2015.
8. The insurer also filed its reply by taking preliminary objections that the petition was not maintainable. The averments made in the petition were denied generally. It was alleged that the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident.
9. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed-
1) Whether Vikram Singh died in motor vehicle incident on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle bearing No. HP- 01A-5266, on 18.10.2014 at about 12:15 AM at place Khedru, District Hamirpur, H.P., as alleged? OPP.
2 Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, then what should be the quantum? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR.
4) Whether the petitioners have no cause of action to file the present petition, as alleged ? OPR
5) Relief.
Issue Nos. 1 and 2 were decided in affirmative, whereas remaining issues were decided in negative. The petition was, accordingly allowed and compensation of Rs. 68,36,618/- was awarded in favour of the claimants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of entire amount. The compensation has been apportioned between the claimants as under:-
Claimant No.1=50%;
and remaining 50% divided equally between claimants No. 2 to 5.
10. Learned Tribunal held the insurer to indemnify the insured with respect to compensation awarded in favour of claimant.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
12. Learned Senior Counsel representing the insurer would contend that the claimants had failed to discharge the burden of proving the cause of accident to be rash and negligent driving of the driver. He would submit that the findings returned by learned Tribunal in para-32 of the impugned award were against the material on record.
13. The arguments rai
