Back
2025 Supreme(HP) 1378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
Sunita Devi and Others – Appellants
Versus
Khem Dass and Others – Respondents
FAO (MVA) Nos. 160, 161 of 2016
Decided On : 02-09-2025
For the Appellant : Aman Parth Sharma
For the Respondents: Sanjeev Bhushan, Rajesh Kumar, B.M. Chauhan, Amit Himalvi, Kamakshi Tarlokta
Rash negligent truck driving proved by driver's inconsistent FIR/testimony vs reliable eyewitnesses; MACT reversal; compensation on notional income, 40% prospects, consortium Rs40k each; valid insurance mandates third-party indemnity. (32 words)
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 147 - Third party motor accident death claims - Rash and negligent driving of truck driver established on preponderance of probability due to inconsistencies in FIR lodged by driver (claiming scooter with three riders hit rear due to oncoming lights, contradicted in testimony) and improbable post-collision observations; reliable eyewitnesses (one on footpath, another arriving post-impact) corroborated claimants' version of parked scooter and persons run over; untraced report flawed without notice to claimants; medical evidence of severe fractures consistent with run-over, not mere rear collision; insurer liable as vehicle documents valid at accident time. (Paras 12-27, 35-37)
(B) Quantum of compensation - Self-employed mechanic (26 years, bachelor): notional income Rs.3000/month, 50% deduction, 40% future prospects, multiplier 17 yields Rs.4,28,400/- loss of income + Rs.15,000 estate + Rs.15,000 funeral + Rs.40,000 consortium each (3 claimants) = Rs.5,78,000/- total; salaried employee (37 years, 4 dependents): gross Rs.3600/month, 1/4th deduction, 40% prospects, multiplier 15 yields Rs.6,30,000/- + Rs.15,000 estate + Rs.15,000 funeral + Rs.40,000 consortium each (4 claimants) = Rs.8,20,000/- total; 6% interest from petition filing. (Paras 28-34, 38-40)
Facts of the case:
Two appeals from dismissal of claims by dependents of two deceased killed when truck ran over them and parked scooter while they conversed roadside with eyewitness on footpath; truck driver reversed post-impact; driver FIR alleged scooter (three riders, no lights) rear-ended truck due to oncoming vehicle; MACT accepted driver version, attributed negligence to scooter, dismissed claims.
Findings of Court:
Appeals allowed; truck owner/driver jointly liable, insurer to indemnify and pay Rs.5,78,000/- +6% interest (one appeal), Rs.8,20,000/- +6% interest (other) by 30th September, 2025; specified shares among claimants plus individual consortium.
Issues: Attribution of negligence (truck vs scooter driver); reliability of eyewitnesses and driver testimony/FIR/untraced report; proof/assessment of decedents' incomes absent documents; vehicle/insurance validity; quantum including consortium, prospects, multipliers.
Ratio Decidendi: Appellate court reverses perverse MACT findings where claimants' probable version (preponderance) outweighs driver's contradictory/improbable account; eyewitness shock behavior not suspicious; unrebutted medical evidence supports run-over; notional income where unsubstantiated high claims; insurer bound for third-party despite defences when documents valid.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident facts from claimants and driver's fir version. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. parties' claims on negligence, income, and defenses. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. mact erred relying on driver and untraced report. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. driver's fir and testimony contain contradictions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. claimants' witnesses reliable by preponderance of probability. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 6. injuries support run-over; untraced report invalid. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. truck driver liable for rash negligence. (Para 27) |
| 8. notional income rs.3000/month for unproven earnings. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 9. proven salary rs.3600/month with multiplier. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 10. valid policy makes insurer liable for third-party. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. compensation awarded with 6% interest and distribution. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J.
1. These appeals, arising out of the same accident, for involvement of common question of law, facts and similar evidence, required to be appreciated, are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Case of the appellants is that on 29.05.2010 at about 10.15 p.m., Anil Kumar (deceased) and Rajneesh Kumar (deceased), were talking with PW.5-Avinash Chand at Bamta Bridge, Chandpur, after parking Scooter bearing No.DL-75D-2746 on the side of the road. Avinash Chand was standing on the footpath, whereas, Anil Kumar (deceased) and Rajneesh Kumar (deceased) were standing near the Scooter. At that time, a Truck bearing No.HP-11B-7477, driven by respondent No.2-Tilak Raj (RW.2) in a rash and negligent manner came from Bilaspur side and ran over Rajneesh Kumar and Anil Kumar alongwith Scooter. Respondent No.2-Tilak Raj stopped the Truck at a short distance and, thereafter, reversed it and parked it alongwith the Scooter.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
4. On hearing sound of collision, PW.3 Devkinandan, who was at a distance of 50-100 meters away from the spot rushed to the spot and found Anil Kumar and Rajneesh Kumar lying on the road who were writhing in pain due to injuries. One Kaku was also present there. Truck driver reversed the truck and stopped it near the boys and Scooter. Both injured were shifted to Government Hospital Bilaspur in a Tralla Jeep. PW.3-Devkinandan accompanied them to the Hospital, whereas, Avinash Chand went home. Anil Kumar was declared dead on reaching the Hospital, whereas, Rajneesh Kumar was admitted and thereafter, referred to PGI, Chandigarh. However, he succumbed to injuries.
5. Driver of the Truck did not accompany the injured to the Hospital, but he went to the Police Station and lodged FIR No.155 of 2010 (Ex.PW.2/A) in Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur, H.P., stating therein that when he was driving the Truck bearing No.HP- 11B-7477 for transporting cement from Darlaghat to Galod, District Hamirpur, H.P., a Scooter came from Bilaspur to Chandpur side, lights whereof were switched off and a Truck came from opposite side number of which could not be read by respondent No.2-Tilak Raj and as Headlights of that Scooter were off, Scooter rider hit the scooter on back side of his truck. On hearing sound of collision, he stopped the Truck and got down and saw that three persons, who were riding the Scooter bearing No.DL-7SD-2746, had hit the truck and the person who was driving the Scooter had died on the spot and the second person sitting behind him had suffered injuries and blood was oozing from the injuries and third person who was the last rider had not received any injury and he went Home immediately after the accident. On inquiry, name of Scooter rider came to know as Rajneesh Kumar and it was concluded that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Scooter rider.
6. In aforesaid backdrop, claim petitions were preferred by dependent legal representatives of deceased Rajneesh Kumar and Anil Kumar.
7. FAO No.160 of 2016
(A) In this case, M.A.C. No.3/2 of 2012/11
