Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhim Singh (Deceased) Through His Lrs on 7 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:26568 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
FAO No.250 of 2020 a/w FAO No.315 of 2019 Reserved on: 01.08.2025 Decided on: 7th August, 2025 .
FAO No.250 of 2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant versus Bhim Singh (deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents Bhim Singh (deceased) through his LRs r to FAO No.315 of 2019 .......Appellants versus Amrik Singh and another ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ishan Sharma and Ms.Nisha Nalot, Advocates for the appellant in FAO No.250 of 2020 and for the respondent in FAO No.315 of 2019.
For the respondents: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate with Ms.Kamakshi Tarlokta, Advocate for the respondent in FAO No.250 of 2020 and for the appellant in FAO No.315 of 2019.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 2 Satyen Vaidya, Judge Both these appeals were heard and are being decided by a common judgment as identical questions of facts .
and law are involved.
2. FAO No.250 of 2020 has been filed by the insurer, challenging the award dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short the 'Tribunal') in MAC Petition No.24-S/2 of 2016, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.38,85,395/- has been awarded in favour of the claimants along-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization by directing the insurer/appellant to discharge the liability.
3. FAO No.315 of 2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement alleging inadequacy of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. During pendency of these appeals, claimant Bhim Singh has died and he has been substituted by his legal representatives i.e. wife, sons and daughters.
5. The claim petition was filed by claimant Bhim Singh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short the 'Act') for compensation on account of injuries and ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 3 permanent disablement suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident involving Alto Car No.PB-09Z-3014.
6. It was alleged that on 16.02.2016, at about 9.00 .
AM the claimant was travelling by riding motorcycle No. PB-
08-BG-9763. When he reached near G.T. Road opposite Ranvir Classic Hotel, Jalandhar, an Alto Car No. PB-09Z-
3014 driven by Amrik Singh (respondent No.1 in FAO No.315 of 2019) came from other direction and hit the motorcycle of the claimant. Consequently, the claimant received grievous injuries. FIR in respect of the incident was registered vide FIR No.36 dated 16.02.2016 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 427 IPC at Police Station, Division No.8 Jalandhar (Punjab) against Amrik Singh.
7. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of Amrik Singh. The offending car was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited i.e. appellant in FAO No.250 of 2020.
8. The claimant had alleged that he was initially admitted in Sacred Hospital, Maqsuda Hospital from where he was shifted to Neurological Institute of Medical Sciences Pvt. Ltd. (NIMS), Jalandhar for specialized treatment of spinal injury. The claimant remained admitted in NIMS Hospital ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 4 from 16.02.2016 to 04.03.2016. He was treated by Orthopedic Surgeons, Neuro-physician and the claimant also underwent surgery. It was claimed that the claimant had .
been permanently disabled to the extent of 100% as he was unable to move. Treatment of the claimant was stated to be continuing at the time of filing of the petition.
9. Amrik Singh was proceeded against ex-parte as he did not choose to contest the petition despite having been served with the notice to appear.
10. Only the insurer contested the petition. In its reply, objections were raised as to maintainability of the petition, estoppels, breach of terms and conditions of the policy, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The claimant was alleged to be rash and negligent and according to the insurer that was the cause of accident.
11. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether Sh. Bhim Singh, sustained injuries in a motor accident on 16.02.2016, involving vehicle No. PB-09Z-
3014, being driven by respondent No.1, in rash and negligent manner? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, for what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled and from whom? OPP.
3. Whether the present petition is notmaintainable?
OPR.
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 5
4. Whether the claimant is estopped from claiming compensation due to his own wrongful acts, deeds and conduct? OPR-2.
5. Whether the vehicle in question was plied in violation of .
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?
OPR-2.
6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR-2.
7. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-jonder/mis-
joinder of necessary parties OPR
8. Relief.
12. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative, whereas, all other issues were decided in negative. Learned Tribunal awarded the compensation, as noticed above, under the following heads:-
Sr.No. Head Amount
1. Pain and sufferings 34,000/-
2. Loss of enjoyment of life 5,00,000/-
3. Shortened expectation of life 2,00,000/-
and future treatment
4. Loss of earning and earning 21,60,000(12,000X12X15) capacity
5. Medical expenses 4,61,395/-
6. Travelling expenses 30,000/-
7. Special diet and attendant 5,00,000/-
charges
Total Rs.38,85,395/-
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
6
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records carefully.
14. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate .
representing the insurer would assail the impugned award on quantum. He contended that income of claimant @ 12,000/-
per month, as considered by the learned Tribunal had no legal basis. He submitted that in absence of any documented income of claimant, learned Tribunal should have adverted to the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act to arrive at a notional income. Mr. Sharma, further pointed out that the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the age of the claimant as 40 years, whereas, his age on the date of accident was 44 years, 11 months and 12 days. In order to substantiate his argument, learned Senior Advocate made reference to the document Ext.PW-1/B, according to which, the date of birth of the claimant was 04.03.1971. He, thus, contended that the learned Tribunal had wrongly applied the multiplier of 15, whereas, it should have been 14, as per mandate in Sarla Verma & others versus Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
15. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate raised another argument that the claimant had died within ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 7 almost five years of the date of accident and his death is not related to the injuries suffered in the accident and thus, the multiplier, if any, should be of five only, instead of 14.
.
16. On the other hand, Mr. Brij Mohan Chauhan, learned Senior Advocate representing the claimant would contend that the learned Tribunal had failed to grant any enhancement on the monthly income of the claimant on account of loss of future prospects. He submitted that the occupation of the claimant as the 'Die Fitter' was proved by the statement of the claimant himself as the claimant was not cross-examined on this vital aspect. He further submitted that the death of claimant was directly related to the injuries suffered by him in the accident.
17. As per claimant, he was employed as Die Fitter with S.M. Forgings, Tools and Hardware Industries, Jalandhar at the time of accident. Claimant had further claimed that his salary was Rs.20,000/- per month. In addition, an earning of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum was stated to be available to the claimant from the agricultural land and apple orchard.
18. The claimant while leading the evidence examined himself as PW-1. He submitted that his examination-in-chief ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 8 by way of affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition.
Though, he was cross-examined on behalf of the insurer, but his testimony to the effect that he was working as 'Die Fitter' .
with S.M. Forgings, Tools and Hardware Industries, Jalandhar, was not challenged. Thus, it stood proved that the claimant at the time of accident was working as 'Die Fitter' with the aforesaid industry. A suggestion was put to claimant in cross-examination that he was not earning Rs.20,000/- per month from his job or Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from orchard, to which the claimant had replied in negative.
19. The claimant did not prove the salary earned from his job either by proving his salary certificate or from the records of S.M. Forgings, Tools and Hardware Industries. In such circumstances, advertence to the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, would have been proper.
20. At the time of hearing, both the sides have placed on record, the rates of minimum wages fixed during the relevant period. The date of accident was 16.02.2016.
Whereas, learned counsel for the insurer has placed reliance on the Notification issued by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act, learned counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on the ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 9 Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab.
Since, the claimant was employed in Punjab, it would be proper to advert to the wages fixed in Punjab during the .
relevant period. As on 01.09.2016, the wages of highly skilled worker were Rs.10,167/- per month and of the skilled worker were Rs.9135.56/- per month. Even if the claimant was considered to be a skilled worker, his monthly income would be Rs.9135/-. It is more than settled that while assessing income of a victim of motor vehicle accident for the purposes of compensation, some amount on guesswork is permissible where the income is not documented. It cannot be ignored that the minimum wages are fixed for specified hours, whereas, a workman in private sector normally works for extra hours to earn more. In this view of the matter, considering the claimant to be a skilled worker, his monthly income including overtime wages can conveniently be assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
21. Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not considered the grant of any incremental hike on account of loss of future prospects. As per National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the hike on this count would be 25%. Thus, the monthly income of the ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 10 claimant would be Rs.12,500/-. Ext.PW-1/B is the matriculation certificate of the claimant, in which, his date of birth has been recorded as 04.03.1971. Thus, on the date of .
accident i.e. 16.02.2016, the age of claimant was more than 44 years. As per Sarla Verma's case (Supra), the multiplier applicable in the case of claimant would be 14, instead of 15 as applied by the learned Tribunal.
22. In view of what has been held above, the total loss of future income of the claimant would be Rs.12500X12X 14=Rs.21,00,000/-, instead of Rs.21,60,000/-, as assessed by the learned Tribunal.
23. As regards the contention of insurer that on account of death of claimant, multiplier should be of five only, learned Senior Counsel for the claimant has rebutted the same by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (2021) SCC online 691. In the said judgment, it has been held that the claim of the personal injuries might not survive after the death of insured unrelated to the accident of injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claim for ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 11 the loss of estate, would be available and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
24. Thus, the claimant had become entitled to .
compensation on the date of accident, though its adjudication had taken sometime. Even on the date of adjudication by the learned Tribunal, claimant was alive. Thus, the compensation awarded in favour of claimant was part of his estate, which came to be inherited by his legal heirs, who were substituted as respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) in FAO No. 250 of 2020 and appellants in FAO No.315 of 2019. Undoubtedly, in the light of judgment in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon' case (supra), the legal representatives of deceased claimant would be entitled to the compensation as estate of deceased. In this view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the insurer is rejected.
25. Since, re-calculation is required to be made under the head 'loss of future income, the compensation payable to the legal representatives of claimant shall be as under:-
Sr.No. Head Amount
1. Pain and sufferings 34,000/-
2. Loss of enjoyment of life 5,00,000/-
3. Shortened expectation of life 2,00,000/-
and future treatment ::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS ( 2025:HHC:26568 ) 12
4. Loss of earning and earning 21,00,000(12500X12X14) capacity
5. Medical expenses 4,61,395/-
6. Travelling expenses 30,000/-
.
7. Special diet and attendant 5,00,000/-
charges
Total Rs.38,25,395/-
26. In light of the above discussion appeal of the Insurer i.e. FAO No.250 of 2020 is partly allowed and the appeal of the claimant is dismissed. The impugned award dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MAC Petition No.24-S/2 of 2016 is modified to the extent as held above.
27. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
28. Record be sent back forthwith.
August 07, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Judge
::: Downloaded on - 07/08/2025 21:28:54 :::CIS