Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
Oriental Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Gopal and Others – Respondents
FAO (MVA) No. 4021 of 2013
Decided On : 09-12-2025
For the Appellants : G.C. Gupta, Deepak Gupta
For the Respondents: Reeta Goswami, Komal Chaudhary, Rekha Kumari, Vivek Sharma, Shubh Mahajan, Surila Sangam, Inder Sharma
Insurer must pay third-party compensation despite driver's lacking hazardous goods endorsement on license (breach), recoverable from owner; unsubstantiated loss of studies excluded from quantum.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173 - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 - Rule 9 - Injuries from motor accident between bus and tanker carrying hazardous goods due to rash and negligent driving of both - Tribunal awarded Rs.1,74,000/- compensation - Appeal by insurer: quantum reduced to Rs.1,34,000/- deleting Rs.40,000/- loss of studies for want of evidence; Rs.30,000/- inconvenience reclassified as loss of amenities for permanent facial damage, inserted plate causing eating/speaking difficulties. Driver had heavy transport vehicle license but no endorsement for hazardous goods - policy breach, insurer to pay and recover from owner. (Paras 6,12,15,16,22,25,26)
(B) Compensation heads - Pecuniary: treatment expenses, attendant charges, transport; Non-pecuniary: pain suffering, loss amenities - Assessed objectively excluding speculation; evidence-based only. Serious injuries warrant future disability consideration. (Paras 13,14)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner travelling in bus collided with tanker carrying hazardous goods; sustained multiple injuries including nose/mouth damage, broken teeth; treated in hospitals with permanent plate inserted; difficulty chewing/speaking; alleged studies impact; claimed high compensation.
Findings of Court:
Total compensation Rs.1,34,000/- with interest; insurer to deposit and recover from owner; other award terms intact.
Issues: Rash/negligent driving causing injuries; compensation quantum; driver valid license; policy contravention.
Ratio Decidendi: Rule 9 requires endorsement beyond transport license for hazardous goods; lack thereof breaches policy but third-party claimant entitled to insurer payment first, recovery from owner per pay and recover principle; no award for unproven loss of studies.
Result: Appeal disposed; award modified.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. vehicle collision due to negligence caused claimant's facial and dental injuries. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties denied liability, alleged bus negligence and policy violations. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. tribunal found negligence, awarded rs.1,74,000 against owner/driver. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. insurer appealed excessive compensation lacking evidence. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. compensation for medical, pain, amenities upheld; studies loss rejected sans evidence. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 6. rule 9 cmvr mandates endorsement for hazardous goods vehicle drivers. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. insurer pays third-party claim first, recovers from owner on breach. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 8. award modified to rs.1,34,000; insurer pays and recovers. (Para 26) |
JUDGMENT :
SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.
1. The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant”), under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the Act”) against the award dated 24.04.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P., in MAC Petition No.0100069 of 2010, with a prayer to reduce/modify the impugned award.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 19.10.2009, the petitioner was travelling in HRTC bus from Shimla to Kingal and when the said bus reached at Jabli near Kumarsain, at about 4:00 PM, it met with an accident with a Tanker bearing registration No.HR37C-1283, due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles. In the said accident, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries all over the body, his nose and mouth were badly damaged/injured and his teeth had also broken. He was taken to Government Hospital Baragaon for treatment, from where he was shifted to Kumarsain and thereafter he was referred to Dental Hospital, Shimla, where he remained admitted from 22.10.2009 to 31.10.2009. As per the petitioner, he spent more than Rs.2 lacs on his treatment including travelling expenses. The petitioner further alleged that before the accident, he was hale and hearty and also good in his studies, but due to the accident, his mouth had become ugly and it had become difficult to chew properly as iron plate had been inserted in his mouth. Hence, he prayed for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,65,0000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 contested the petition and filed separate replies, wherein preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action were taken. On merits, they averred that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of HRTC bus, hence, respondent No.4 is liable to pay compensation, if any, to the petitioner. It was further averred that in fact respondent No.2 was not driving the vehicle at the relevant time as he had gone to a roadside temple.
4. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3/ Insurance Company, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, driver of the Tanker was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, the vehicle was not having any valid registration, fitness, permit and it was being plied in violation of the terms of the insurance policy. On merits, it was averred that the compensation, as claimed, was highly excessive.
5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 18.11.2011:-
“1. Whether the petitioner had sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Tanker No.HR-37C-1283 being drive by respondent No.2 and Bus No.HP-64- 1093, being driven by respondent No.5 in which he was travelling, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation is the petitioner entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.3 was not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time? ...OPR-3.
4. Whether the offending Tanker No.HR-37C-1283 was being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the
