IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO No. 128 of 2013 Reserved on: 28.6.2025 Date of decision: 7 . 7 .202 5 Hans Raj. ….Appellant.

Versus Sita Devi & other. ….Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

For the Appellant : Ms.Veena Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondents: None for respondents No. 1 to 4, though represented by Mr.Kunal Verma, Advocate.

Mr.J.S. Bagga, Advocate, for respondent No. 5.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by the owner-cum-driver, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) against the award dated 29.9.2012 passed by MACT Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 108 of 2009, titled as Sita Devi and others Vs. Hans Raj and others, whereby after determining the quantum of compensation by MACT, by rendering findings that deceased

1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes was traveling in the vehicle as gratuitous passenger, liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon owner-cum-driver/appellantP.

2. In present case, it has come on record that on 25.3.2009, deceased Rajinder Kami and Karan Dass alongwith their luggage and house-hold articles were going from Bilaspur to Rekong Peo, District Kinnaur in a vehicle Pick Up Jeep HP-24A-0717 arranged by Contractor Mahinder Thakur for transporting these two persons alongwith their goods. The vehicle was hit by a Truck near Nogli in Tehsil Rampur, District Shimla causing injurieus to deceased Rajinder Kami, who was shifted to MGMSC Khaneori, wherefrom he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he was declared dead on 29.3.2009 and his postmortem (Ex. 1/F) was conducted on 30.3.2009. Immediately after the accident, during intervening night of 25-26.3.2009 at 1.30 A.M., report was lodged by appegllant Hans Raj in Police Station Rampur with respect to occurrence iof accident and on the basis of which, FIR No. 70 dated 26.3.2009 was registered in Police Station Rampur Bushahr.

3. Respondents/claimants No.1 to 4 filed Petition under Section 163-A of MV Act, 1998 against appellant Hans Raj and Insurance Company for compensation on account of death of Rajinder Kami with claim that deceased was earning ₹3,000/- per month and thus claimants were entitled for compensation amounting to ₹4,08,500/-.

4. After completion of pleadings MACT had framed following issues:- P “1. Whether late Sh. Rajinder Kami had expired on account of injuries sustained by him on account of use of vehicle No. HP-

24A-0717, being driven by respondent No. 1, Halleged?

OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what am ount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from fwhom? OPP

3. Whether the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, if so to what effect?

OPR-2

4. Whether respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence, at the relevant time? OPR-1

5. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy as alleged?

OPR-2

6. Whether this petition is not maintainable against respondent No. 1, as alleged?

OPR-1

7. Relief.”

5. The Claim Petition was allowed by deciding issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of claimants and issues No. 3, 4 and 6 against the H appellant-owner-cum driver and issue No. 5 against the Insurance Company.

6. For returning findings that deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, it has been held by the MACT that Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner-cum-driver by paying the awarded compensation to the claimants, but the amount of compensation has to be paid/deposited by the owner of the vehicle after adjusting the amount if any paid under Section 140 of the MV. Act.P

7. Present appeal has been preferred by owner against the findings returned by the MACT in issue No. 3, whereby it has been held that deceased was traveling in the vehicle as gratuit ous passenger.

8. Awarded amount