Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
Union of India & Another - Appellants
Versus
Kiran Bala & others - Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 503 of 2015
Decided On : 30-10-2025
For the Appellant :Mr.Balram Sharma, Deputy Solicitor General of India with Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr.Vikas Rathore, Advocate
The court affirmed that the undertaking by a deceased cannot deny family members' rights to claim compensation, emphasizing future income and just compensation guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Appeal against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s judgment for compensation for death due to a road accident - Compensation awarded by MACT was held insufficient and modified to ₹14,86,000/- with 7.5% interest - Undertaking by deceased was deemed not sustainable. (Paras 11, 19, 27)
(B) Compensation Calculation - Consideration of loss of dependency, future prospects, and loss of consortium for surviving family members cited - Reliance on prior judgments for determination of just compensation. (Paras 20, 25)
Facts of the case:
Claimants sought compensation for the death of Halku Ram, an employee who died from injuries caused in a vehicular accident where he took a lift on a tanker. Respondents contested based on an affidavit by the deceased claiming no compensation would be sought.
Findings of Court:
Adequate proof of negligence on the part of the vehicle’s driver confirmed. MACT assessment of compensation deemed too low and was adjusted accordingly.
Issues: The main issue considered was whether the insurance claim could be denied due to an affidavit about taking a lift, as well as arguments concerning compensation calculations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the undertaking could not bar family members’ claims. It ruled for reassessing compensation based on established guidelines for just and future-oriented compensation, resulting in a significant increase. (Paras 19, 27)
Result: Award modified and enhanced compensation awarded.
JUDGMENT :
Vivek Singh Thakur, J.
This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV Act’) against award dated 9.6.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Mandi, H.P. (for short MACT) in Claim Petition No. 52 of 2007, titled as Kiran Bala & others Vs. Commandant, 70 RCC (Gref) & others, whereby Claim Petition preferred by claimants/respondents has been allowed and appellants have been directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.13,77,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till payment of the compensation alongwith cost of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Parties hereinafter shall be referred as per their status before the MACT, for convenience.
3. Claimant No. 1 Kiran Bala is wife of deceased Halku Ram, claimant No. 2 Chamari Devi is mother of deceased Halku Ram, whereas claimants No. 3 and 4 are minor children of deceased Halku Ram.
4. Respondent No. 1 is Incharge of vehicle No. 99E-61171 involved in the accident, whereas respondent No. 2 Lalit Kumar is driver of said vehicle. Respondent No. 3 is Union of India.
5. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Halku Ram was serving as Chowkidar in IPH Department Kelong, District Lauhal and Spiti, H.P. On 2.2.2007 at 4:00 P.M., he took lift in Tanker bearing No. 99E-61171 of the respondents from Tandi Trishe point towards Stingri. The aforesaid Tanker driven by driver respondent No. 2 Lalit Kumar, when reached near Villing Nallah, rolled down in the Nallah about 30 meters, causing multiple injuries on the whole body of Halku Ram. Halku Ram was shifted to Kelong Hospital for immediate treatment, wherefrom he was referred to Kullu and from Kullu to IGMC, Shimla where, on 6.2.2007, he succumbed to his injuries and postmortem (Ex. PW-1/C) of his dead body was conducted on 7.2.2007.
6. FIR No. 7/2007 (Ex. PW-1/B), dated 2.2.2007, with respect to accident in reference was registered in Police Station, Kelong under Sections 279, 337 and 304A IPC against respondent No. 2, driver.
7. Claimants preferred Claim Petition under Section 166 of the MV Act for awarding compensation, amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- for death of deceased Halku Ram on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2.
8. Respondents opposed the Claim Petition on the ground that deceased Halku Ram himself had given undertaking in an affidavit Mark- D on 3.2.2007 in presence of Hans Raj Kaushal, Junior Engineer, IPH Nargul Section and Mast Ram P&H department, which was attested by Executive Magistrate, Kelong, stating therein that he was traveling in the vehicle on his own will and neither he nor his family members would claim any compensation from the respondents.
9. It was further stand of the respondents that accident took place due to mechanical defect in the vehicle, the Claim Petition was filed on the basis of false manipulated facts, and deceased was not earning Rs.12,000/- per month.
10. After considering the pleadings and evidence placed on record, it was concluded by the MACT that death of Halku Ram has caused on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 2, and undertaking given by deceased Halku Ram was against the statute and thus was not sustainable and claimants had every right to file and maintain the Claim Petition.
11. MACT had determined the amount of compensation on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.6400/- as was being received by deceased Halku Ram from the Department, but without taking into consideration claim of additional income put forth by the claimants. Wife of deceased was also held entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- on account of loss of consortium, minor children were held entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of care and guidance, and Rs.25,000/- was awarded on account of funeral charges and as such claimants were held entitled to receive compensation of Rs.13,77,000/- to be paid by respondents jointly and severely alongwith interest @ 9% per annum thereon with cost of
