SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(HP) 1174

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Rajinder Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Vijay Kumari And Ors. - Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 64 of 2022 a/w FAO (MVA) No. 45 of 2022
Decided On : 26-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Saurav Sharma, Mr. Shekhar Badola, Mr. Rupesh Mumar, Ms. Vishali Lakhanpal, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ms. Neelam Kaplas, Advocate, Neha Negi, Advocate, vice Mr. Ajay Kumar Dhiman, Advocate, Ms. Devyani Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Vinay Sharma Advocate

Driving unregistered vehicle on public road is fundamental insurance policy breach; insurer must pay third-party claimants but recover from owner. Compensation recalculated with future prospects, tax deductions, age-based multiplier, consortium.

Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 39 and 43 - Necessity for registration of motor vehicle before driving on public place - Temporary registration valid for 30 days, no renewal provision, permanent registration mandatory - Driving unregistered vehicle constitutes offence and fundamental breach of insurance policy terms - Insurer liable to satisfy third party compensation award with right to recover from owner. (Paras 6-13)

(B) Compensation quantum in motor accident death claims - For salaried victims with dependents, gross salary proved by last pay certificate - Deduct 25% for personal expenses - Add future prospects 30% (age below 50), 15% (50-60) - Deduct income tax on taxable income using slabs - Apply multiplier per age (14 at 45 years, 11 at 53 years) - Add loss of estate Rs.15,000, funeral Rs.15,000, consortium Rs.40,000 each claimant - Interest at 6%. (Paras 17-25)

Facts of the case:
Two consolidated appeals against MACT awards for deaths of two car occupants in accident with parked truck. Car purchased with temporary registration expired before accident date, no permanent registration obtained. Five persons travelled in four-seater. Owner cited family ailments as reason for delay.

Findings of Court:
In first appeal, compensation modified to Rs.61,62,168; second to Rs.64,40,927 with 6% interest from petition filing, insurer to pay claimants with recovery right from owner. Apportionment: 40% to spouse, 20% each to children and mother.

Issues: Whether absence of vehicle registration absolves insurer; effect of overloading and non-impleadment of truck parties; correctness of compensation quantum and interest rate.

Ratio Decidendi: Unregistered vehicle use is fundamental policy breach, no valid excuse like family circumstances; insurer cannot escape initial third party liability per law; overloading and non-impleadment not causative or waived by conduct; quantum recalculated per guidelines ensuring just compensation.

Result: Appeals disposed with aforesaid modifications.

Table of Content
1. joint appeals from same unregistered vehicle accident deaths. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. tribunal awards compensation to dependents of deceased hrtc employees. (Para 4 , 5)
3. mv act mandates registration; temporary expires after 30 days. (Para 6 , 7)
4. parties contend policy breach by overload, non-registration. (Para 8 , 9)
5. non-registration fundamental breach; insurer pays, recovers from owner. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
6. overload lacks accident nexus; acquiescence bars truck impleadment. (Para 15 , 16)
7. mohinder singh compensation rs.61.62 lakh per pranay sethi. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
8. manoj kumar compensation rs.64.41 lakh per pranay sethi. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
9. insurer pays with recovery right at 6% interest. (Para 26)

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

These appeals, for involvement of common question of facts and law to be adjudicated on the basis of similar evidence, are being decided together by this judgment.

2. Both appeals have been preferred against the award passed by concerned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in two different claim petitions preferred by respective claimants on account of the death of two occupants of the car being driven by driver Rai Singh, which was owned by Rajinder Kumar.

3. Common facts in these appeals are that on 02.10.2015, at about 7:27 a.m., Manoj Kumar (deceased-victim in FAO No. 64 of 2022), Mohinder Singh (deceased-victim in FAO No. 45 of 2022), Kuldeep Singh, Rajinder Singh (owner of the vehicle) and Rai Singh (driver) were travelling to Shimla in Nano Car No. HP-68A-Temp.5592 and when the car reached near Tyala Da Ghat, near Bhota, in District Hamirpur, it struck with a truck No. HP-24D-2342 from back side, which was parked on kutcha gola outside the metalled road, leading to the death of Manoj Kumar and Mohinder Singh on the spot. Their postmortem was conducted. Regarding the incident, FIR No. 178, dated 02.10.2015, was registered in Police Station, Hamirpur, H.P.

4. FAO No. 45 of 2022

4(i). Dependents of Mohinder Singh preferred Claim Petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur by filing Claim Petition No. MACT No. 44 of 2016, titled as Pushap Lata & Ors vs. Rajinder Kumar & Ors., wherein after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record, the MACT has awarded compensation in favour of claimants amounting to Rs. 63,11,599/- with interest therein @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation with direction that the compensation shall be paid to the claimants by Insurance Company being insurer. This award has been assailed by filing FAO No. 45 of 2022.

4(ii). Deceased Mohinder Singh was serving as Senior Assistant in HRTC and his monthly salary was Rs. 38,105/-, as is evident from Last Pay Certificate Ex.PW1/A, issued by the Regional Manager, HRTC.

4(iii) Deceased was 45 years old. Claimant No. 1 is wife, claimants No. 2 and 3 are children and claimant No. 4 is mother of deceased Mohinder Singh.

4(iv) FIR in this matter has been placed on record as Ext. PW3/A, postmortem report has been placed as Ext. PW4/A. Insurance of the vehicle and Sale Certificate have been placed on record by owner of the vehicle i.e. RW-1 Rajinder Kumar as Ext. R-1 and Ext. R-2.

5. FAO No. 64 of 2022

5(i). Dependents of Manoj Kumar preferred Claim Petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, District Kangra, H.P. by filing Claim Petition No. MACT No. 65 of 2016, titled as Vijay Kumari & Ors vs. Rai Singh & Ors., wherein, after taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence on record, the MACT has awarded compensation in favour of claimants amounting to Rs. 65,30,488/- with interest therein @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till its realisation with direction that the compensation shall be paid to the claimants by Insurance Company being insurer with right to recover the same from the owner of the car Rajinder Kumar. This award has been assailed by filing FAO No. 64 of 2022.

5(ii). Deceased Manoj Kumar,



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top