Himachal Pradesh High Court
Reserved On : 18.4.2026 vs Of on 30 April, 2026
Author: Virender Singh
Bench: Virender Singh
1 2026:HHC:14209-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
FAO (MV) No. 120 of 2014 Reserved on : 18.4.2026 Decided on : 30.4.2026 .
Reena Mehta & ors.
.......Appellants
Versus
of
Ashok Thakur & ors. ...Respondents
Coram rt
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 yes __________________________________________________________________ For the appellants: Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.
For the respondents: Mr. K.S. Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
Virender Singh, Judge.
The appellants, being dis-satisfied with the award dated 30.4.2013, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), in Claim Petition No. 16-S/2 of 2010, 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 2titled as, 'Reena Mehta & others versus Ashok Kumar & anr.', have preferred the present appeal.
2. By way of award dated 30.4.2013, the learned .
Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the appellants by awarding a sum of Rs. 17,01,610/-, as compensation, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till deposit. The ultimate liability has been of fastened upon respondent No. 2, insurer of vehicle No. HP 51A-1965. rt
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal.
4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up, as under:-
The claimants, being widow, minor daughter, minor son and mother of deceased Satish Mehta had filed the claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the M.V. Act'), seeking compensation on account of death of Satish Mehta, who expired in a roadside accident, involving vehicle No. HP-51A-
1965, (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle'), on 26.10.2009, being owned and driven by respondent No. 1, in ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 3 a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2.
4.1 According to the claimants, deceased Satish .
Mehta was travelling in the offending vehicle from Delhi to Shimla. When, the offending vehicle, being driven by respondent No. 1, reached near Kaithlighat, then, the same had met with an accident, due to rash and negligent driving of of respondent No. 1, as he could not negotiate the curve.
Consequently, the vehicle rolled down in the gorge. The rt predecessor-in-interest of the claimants died on the spot. His dead body was taken to Regional Hospital, Solan, where post-mortem examination of the dead body was conducted on 26.10.2009. The information, regarding the accident, was given to Police Station, Kandaghat, where, FIR No. 100/2009 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304 IPC. The age of Satish Mehta, at the time of his death, has been pleaded as 39 years. According to the claimants, Satish Mehta was earning Rs. 40,000/- per month, as he was Architech and Builder by profession. In addition to this, he also used to earn Rs. 5000/- from horticulture work.
4.2 The claimants have pleaded about their bright past and bleak future and sought compensation of Rs.
50,00,000/-,alongwith interest @ Rs. 12% per annum, from the ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 4 date of accident till realization of the amount from the respondents.
5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been .
contested by the respondents, by filing reply(ies).
6. Respondent No. 1 has filed separate reply, by admitting the factum of accident, as well as, death of predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, in the accident in of question. However, he has denied that the accident had taken place due to his rash and negligent driving.
rt
7. The Insurance Company of the offending vehicle has filed its separate reply, by taking preliminary objections, qua the fact that the claim petition is not maintainable.
According to the Insurance Company, respondent No. 1 was not driving the vehicle in question, in rash and negligent driving. According to the Insurance Company, respondent No. 1 was not having valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident. As such, the vehicle is stated to be driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
The claim petition is stated to be bad for non-joinder and mis-
joinder of necessary parties.
8. On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. Thus, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 59. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made by the respondents to dismiss the claim petition.
10. From the pleadings of the parties, the following .
issues were framed, by the learned Tribunal, vide order dated 20.11.2010:-
1. Whether Sh. Satish Mehta had died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-
of 51A-1965 by respondent No.1? OPP
2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom petitioners are entitled to? OPP
3. rt Whether respondent No.1 had not been in possession of valid and effective driving licence if so with what effect? OPR-2.
4. Whether respondent No.1 had been plying his vehicle No. HP-51A-1965 without valid registration certificate and fitness certificate in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and Motor Vehicles Act? OPR-2. and
5. Whether claim petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPR 2
6. Relief.
11. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed, as referred to above.
12. Feeling dis-satisfied with the said award, the present appeal has been preferred. Enhancement of the awarded amount has been sought on the ground that the ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 6 learned tribunal has wrongly restricted the income of deceased to Rs. 9314/- per month, whereas, according to the claimants, it has been proved on record that his income, at .
the time of death, was from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per month. In this regard, claimants have relied upon the statements of PWs 1 to PWs 15. As per the claimants, income of deceased has wrongly been taken as Rs. 1,11,774/- per of annum.
13. The award has also been sought to be enhanced rt on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not given additions on account of future prospects of the deceased.
Consortium is stated to have been given on the lesser side.
The learned Tribunal is also stated to have wrongly deducted 1/3rd out of income of deceased, on account of personal expenses, after applying the multiplier of 15.
14. On the basis of above facts, Mr. Anirudh Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has prayed that amount of compensation may kindly be enhanced.
15. The prayer, so made, has been opposed by learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2, on the ground that learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation. However, according to learned counsel for respondent No. 2, rate of interest has wrongly been ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 7 awarded to the claimants @ 9% per annum, as the same should have been @ 7.5% per annum.
16. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been .
made to dismiss the appeal, however, by reducing the rate of interest from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum.
17. In this case, neither owner-cum-driver nor Insurance Company has assailed the award passed by the of learned Tribunal. In such situation, the only question, which arises for determination, before this Court, is with regard to rt the fact as to whether amount of compensation, which has been awarded to the claimants, by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of 'just compensation' or not?
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir and another, (2009) 2 SCC (Cri.) 987 has held that the provisions of M.V. Act are beneficial piece of legislation and the endeavour of the Court/Tribunal should be to provide "just compensation".
The relevant paras 23 and 24 of the judgment are reproduced as under:-
"23. Both, the 1923 Act and 1988 Act are beneficent legislation insofar as they provide for payment of compensation to the workmen employed by the employers and/or by use of motor vehicle by the owner thereof and/or the insurer to the petitioners suffering permanent disability. The amount of compensation is to be deter- mined in terms of the provisions of the respective Acts. Whereas in terms of the 1923 Act, ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 8 the Commissioner who is a quasi judicial authority, is bound to apply the principles and the factors laid down in the Act for the purpose of de- termining the compensation, Section 168 of the 1988 Act enjoins the Tribunal to make an award determining the amount of compensation which .
appears to be just.
24. Both the Acts aim at providing for expeditious relief to the victims of accident. In these cases, the accidents took place by reason of use of motor vehicles. Both the statutes are beneficial ones for the workmen as also the third parties. The benefits thereof are available of only to the persons specified under the Act besides under the Contract of Insurance. The statutes, therefore, deserve liberal construction. The legislative intent rt contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto."
(self emphasis supplied)
19. Being guided by the above decision, now, this Court would proceed further to determine the fact as to whether compensation amount, which has been awarded by the learned Tribunal, falls within the definition of "just compensation" or not?
20. In the claim petition, age of the claimant has been pleaded as 39 years. In the post-mortem report, age of the deceased has been recorded as 40 years. As such, the age of the deceased, at the time of his death, is liable to be taken as 40 years. The learned Tribunal, in the present case, has applied the multiplier of '15', which is in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma (Smt) and ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 9 others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121.
21. Now, the next question, which arises for .
determination, before this Court, is with regard to the fact that income of deceased Satish Mehta, during his lifetime. As per the claim petition, he was earning a sum of Rs 40,000/-
per month. According to the claimants, the deceased was of earning this amount as he was Architect and Builder. In addition to this, he was also earning a sum of Rs. 5000/-
rt from horticulture work.
22. Since, the onus to prove this fact, is upon the claimants, as such, in order to prove this fact, they have relied upon the statement of PW-1 Reena Mehta (claimant No.
1). She has stated on oath that her husband was Architect and Builder by profession. In addition to this, he also used to look after the work of his orchard, alongwith his father. She has given monthly income of her husband as Rs. 45,000/-, during his life time. These earnings have further been bifurcated by stating that he was earning a sum of Rs 40,000/- per month by working as Architect and Builder and a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month, by working in orchard. She has further deposed that her husband was working as ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 10 Architect, for the last 9-10 years, from the date, when, she appeared in the witness box.
22.1 In addition to this, she has stated that her .
husband had employed 25-30 persons, out of which, 5-6 persons were in the office and rest were working as labourers.
She has relied upon the job card of labourers as Ext. PW1/C-
1 to PW1/C-20. Vikram and Anup were stated to be working of in the office. As per her further deposition, her husband was having three vehicles. Two were registered in the name of her rt husband and one was registered in her name. After accident, the claimants were forced to sell the vehicles. Her husband was a registered Architect and was also having GST number.
22.2 It is the further case of PW-1 that her husband was running his business under the name and style of 'Mehta Associates' and 'Sukrit Vastuk'. He was also income tax payee. She has relied upon the income tax return of her husband, for the year 2007-2008.
23. By examining PW-2 Bir Singh from the office of Town & Country Planning, claimants have made efforts to prove the fact that the deceased was Class-B Contractor and was having diploma in Architectural Assistant-ship. In this regard, PW-2 has proved certificate Ext. PW2/A. The abstract of the Register is Ext. PW2/B. The said certificate was valid ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 11 upto 31.3.2010. According to this witness, the license used to be issued in the name of persons, who are having degree/diploma in Architect.
.
24. PW-4 is Gulaba Ram Sharma, who was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Superintending Engineer, 4 th Circle, HPPWD, Winter Field, Shimla. He has proved the fact that the deceased was a registered Contractor and his of enrollment was at serial No. 61 in the Contractor Enrollment Register. He was C-Class Contractor. He has proved the rt abstract of the Register as Ext. PW4/A. The license of the deceased was renewed upto 31.3.2001. As per his further deposition, C-Class contractor, at the relevant time, used to get the execution of work upto Rs. 25,00,000/-, which has now been increased to Rs. 40,00,000/-.
25. PW-7 is Madan Sharma from the office of Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Shimla. He has proved certificates of registration Ext. PW7/A and Ext.
PW7/B, which were issued in the name of deceased. These certificates are issued in favour of Builders, Architects and Businessmen.
26. PW-8 is Sanyog Jaite, who was working as Tax Assistant with the Income Tax Department, at the time of death of the deceased. He has proved income tax return for ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 12 the year 2008-2009, Ext. PW8/A and Income Tax acknowledgment, for the year 2007-2008, Ext. PW8/B.
27. In the cross-examination, PW-8 has admitted that .
as per Ext. PW8/B, a sum of Rs. 15,376/- was sought to be deducted under Section 80(c) of Income Tax Act and as per income tax return, Ext. PW8/A, a sum of Rs. 24,735/- was sought to be refunded under Section 80(C) of Income Tax Act.
of
28. PW-9 is Anup Kumar. He has deposed, on oath, that he was working with deceased Satish Mehta, for the last rt six years. 4-5 persons were working there in the office and 30-35 persons were employed as labourers. He has proved job cards Ext. PW1/C-1 to PW1/C-20. This witness has made entries in this document and put his signatures, in front of their attendance, as he used to mark the presence of the labourers. Deceased used to take the execution of the work of contract and this witness was responsible for labour and construction material. He has deposed that income of Satish Mehta was about Rs. 40,000/- - 50,000/- per month. After his death, business of deceased is stated to have come to an end and the vehicles of Satish Mehta are stated to have been sold.
29. PW-10 is Harishwar Dayal Sirkek. He has deposed that during his life time, Satish Mehta was working as ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 13 Architect and Builder. Initially, he was having his office in Kaprete Building and later on, he has shifted to the building, owned by Sumitra Chauhan. This witness has hired the .
services of Satish Mehta for the construction of his building, however, he is not having any document to prove the same.
30. PW-1 Manohar Lal Shakya has deposed that he was working in Mandi Samiti, at the relevant time. As per of Ext. PW11/A, services of M/s Sukrit Vastuk Dev Shakti were hired. Said M/s Sukrit Vastuk Dev Shakti is stated to be rt owned by Satish Mehta. Payment of Rs. 6,42,967/- was made to deceased Satish Mehta for the work executed by him. He has proved abstract of Register Ext. PW11/B. Final bill was submitted on 8.2.2007 and payment was made on 20.8.2007.
He has proved the copy of final bill Ext. PW11/C. He has admitted that bill Ext. PW11/C is with regard to whole work done by M/s Sukrit Vastuk Dev Shakti.
30.1 As per Ext. PW11/C, claim of more than Rs.
10,00,000/- was made, but payment of Rs. 6,42,967/- was made, for the actual work done, by the Contractor.
31. PW-12 Sumitra Thakur has deposed that the office premises, consisting of two rooms, owned by her, was hired by deceased Satish Mehta. He is stated to be the Architect-
cum-Contractor. The said premises was rented for a sum of ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 14 Rs. 3900/- per month. 5-6 persons were working with him in the office, whereas, 25-30 persons were working in the field.
Considering the number of persons, who used to visit his .
office, she has made a guess about the income of deceased Satish Mehta that the same might be Rs. 40,000/--50,000/-
per month. However, she could not produce any document to prove the fact that she has rented out her premises to of deceased Satish Mehta.
32. PW-13 is Surjit Mehta, elder brother of deceased rt Satish Mehta. He has deposed that his younger brother was working as Architect-cum-Contractor. The deceased is stated to be running his office under the name and style of 'Mehta Associates'. He was registered Architect and Civil Contractor.
This witness used to work with him as Manager. Apart from him, one another person, namely Anup was also Manager in the office of the deceased. 5-6 persons are stated to be working in the office, whereas, 25-30 persons were working in the field. He has submitted the list of persons, who had hired the services of his brother, by proving the same as Ext.
PW13/A and Ext. PW13/B. According to this witness, deceased Satish Mehta was earning a sum of Rs. 50,000/-.
He has also deposed that job cards Ext.PW1/C-1 to Ext.
PW1/C-20 were prepared in their office. He has deposed that ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 15 his brother, during his life time, was maintaining three vehicles, out of which, one was pick-up. After his death, his family members had to sell the same, as it has become .
difficult for them to make both ends meet. As per further deposition of this witness, wife of deceased Satish Mehta was not keeping good health and was under treatment with Apollo Hospital, Delhi. He has denied that the job cards were of prepared fictitiously. He has denied rest of the suggestions.
33. PW-14 Joginder Kumar, has deposed that he has rt hired the services of Satish Mehta as Architect, Builder and Contractor. As per this witness, his services were also hired by Sh. Rakesh Sharma (HAS), Shakti Thakur and S.S. Singhal. He has deposed that he was having 20-25 persons working with him, as labourers. This witness was also not having any documentary proof, qua hiring the services of Satish Mehta.
34. PW-15 is Vinod Shandil. He has deposed that Satish Mehta was Architect and Builder and having 20-25 persons working with him, as labourers. This witness is having 30-32 bigha land in Kamla Nagar, an agreement with regard to land measuring 11 bighas land is stated to have been made with M/s Khosla Developers, New Delhi for construction and deceased Satish Mehta was required to ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 16 provide his services as Architect, in lieu of 3% of total cost of the project. In this regard, he has relied upon the agreement Ext. PW15/A. The subject matter of Ext. PW15/A is owned by .
the father of this witness. According to him, he has not annexed the power of attorney with Ext. PW15/A.
35. The learned Tribunal, while determining the income of deceased Satish Mehta, has relied upon the Income of Tax Return, for the year 2008-09, Ext. PW8/A. The said approach of learned Tribunal has been assailed by way of rt present appeal, on the ground that from the evidence of PWs 1 to 15, it has been proved that deceased was earning Rs.
40,000/- -50,000/- per month. The Income Tax Return, Ext.
PW8/A, has been proved by the claimants as Ext. PW8/A. As per this document, deceased Satish Mehta has mentioned his gross total income for the assessment year 2008-09 as Rs.
1,71,855/-. However, no amount has been added in the income of deceased, amounting to Rs. 1,71,855/-, on account of future prospects, had he been alive.
36. The Income Tax Return has been placed on record by the claimants themselves and income, in this document, has been filled in by the deceased himself. It cannot be expected from him that he had given wrong figures in it.
Much has been stated by the witnesses, examined by the ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 17 claimants, about the income of the deceased, during his life time. However, the Income Tax Return is a solemn declaration by deceased Satish Mehta himself and there is no occasion for .
this Court to disbelieve the assessment made, in this document, on the basis of oral deposition made by the claimants' witnesses, before this Court.
37. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case titled as of 'National Insurance Company Limited versus Pranay Sethi and others', reported in (2017) 16 Supreme Court Cases 680 rt has held that addition of 25% is liable to be given, where, deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years, where deceased was self-employed or on fixed salary. Relevant paragraph 59.4 of the judgment is reproduced as under:
"59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component."
38. After adding 25%, as per Pranay Sethi's case (supra), the income of the deceased comes to Rs. 2,14,819/-
( Rs. 1,71,855/- + Rs. 42,963/-) per annum. On this amount, tax component is liable to be deducted in order to establish his annual income, as held in Pranay Sethi's case (supra).
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 1839. As per the income tax slab, applicable for the assessment year 2008-09, income of Rs. 1,10,000/-was exempted. Therefore, the taxable amount comes to Rs.
.
1,04,819/-. Out of this, the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was taxable @ 10%, which comes to Rs. 4000/- and further amount of Rs. 60,000/- was taxable @ 20%, which comes to Rs. 12,964/-. Thus, the tax amount comes to Rs. 16,964/-.
of The education cess @ 3% on the said amount of Rs. 16,964.-
is also liable to be deducted, which comes to Rs. 509/-. Thus, rt the total tax component comes to Rs. 17,473/-. Hence, the total established income of the deceased comes to Rs.
2,14,819 minus Rs. 17473= Rs. 1,97,346/-.
40. In this case, learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd income of the deceased, on account of personal expenses, had he been alive, wrongly, as in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma's case (supra), 1/4th amount is liable to be deducted, where number of dependent family members is 4 to 6. In the present case, number of dependent family members of the deceased is 4. As such, instead of 1/3rd, 1/4th amount is liable to be deducted. Thus, keeping in view the number of dependents, and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), 1/4th is liable to be deducted towards the personal expenses of the deceased, had ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 19 he been alive. Thus, his monthly contribution towards his family, comes to (Rs. 1,97,346/- minus 1/4 th of Rs.1,97,346/-i.e. Rs. 49,336/-) = Rs. 1,48,010/-.
.
41. Apart from this, claimants are also held entitled for a fixed amount of Rs. 15,000/- each, under the heads 'Loss of estate' and 'Funeral expenses' and a sum of Rs.
40,000/- under the head 'loss of consortium', as per the of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi's case (supra), in which, it has been mandated that the amount rt under the said heads is liable to be enhanced @ 10% after every three years.
42. Thus, the entitlement of the claimants, for which, they are held entitled, is assessed, as under:-
1.Loss of contribution = Rs.1,48,010x15= Rs.
22,20,150/-
2.Loss of estate = Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 4500/-=Rs.
19,500/-
3.Funeral expenses = Rs.15,000/- + Rs. 4500/-
= Rs. 19,500/-
4.Loss of consortium = Rs.40,000x4=Rs.1,60,000/-
+ Rs. 48,000/-= Rs. 2,08,000/-
Total = Rs.22,20,150+19,500+19,500+ Rs.2,08,000= Rs. 24,67,150/-
43. In view of the above, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is liable to be enhanced.
::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS 2044. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9% per annum, which is liable to be reduced. As such, claimants are held entitled to interest @ 7.5%.
.
45. In view of above, the present appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount. The claimants are held entitled for the amount of Rs.24,67,150/-, along with interest @ 7.5%, from the date of filing of petition till the of realization of amount. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is modified in the above terms.
rt The liability has rightly been fastened upon the Insurance Company.
46. Memo of costs be prepared.
47. Pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of.
48. Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh) 30.4.2026 Judge (kalpana) ::: Downloaded on - 02/05/2026 12:23:23 :::CIS