Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Company Ltd vs Madhu Bala(Deceased) & Others on 23 September, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:33012 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA FAO(MVA) No. 351 of 2015 .
Reserved on: 21st May, 2025 Date of decision: 23rd September, 2025 National Insurance Company Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Madhu Bala(deceased) & others ...Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes For the Appellant:
r Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Nisha Nalot, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. H.R. Jhingta, Advocate for respondents
No.1 to 3.
Respondent No.4 stands deleted vide order dated 4.1.2023.
Mr. Virender Singh Rathore, Advocate for respondent No.5.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'the MV Act) against award dated 31 st March, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla (in short 'the MACT) in MAC Petition No. 14-R/2 of 2009 titled Madhu Bala and others vs. National Insurance Company and another, whereby claimants have been held entitled for compensation amounting to Rs.7,19,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 2 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) filing of petition till deposit/payment of amount with direction to the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner by paying the amount within four months to the claimants, failing which interest at the rate .
of 12% per annum from the date of award shall be payable to the claimants.
2 Parties hereinafter shall be referred as claimants, Insurance Company and the owner.
3 Claimants had filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation amounting to Rs. 10 lacs on account of death of Sanjeev Mehta in an motor accident on 15.3.2009 at Mahi-Pul in Police Station Theog, District Shimla at about 2 PM when a Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-10-1245 being driven by deceased Sanjeev Mehta met with an accident. In this regard, FIR No. 39 of 2009 dated 15.3.2009 Ext.PW1/A was registered in the Police Station wherein as per statement made by Dinesh, who was also travelling in the car, the accident took place on account of rash or negligent driving of Sanjeev Mehta. Sanjeev Mehta expired on the same day at about 3.15 PM and his postmortem was conducted on 16.3.2009. The postmortem report is Ext.PW2/A. 4 As per claimants, 33 years old Sanjeev Mehta was employed as driver with the owner of car and was getting Rs.3300/- per month as wages. According to them, one Dinesh, brother of owner of vehicle, who had lodged FIR, and Inder Singh, relative of owner of car, were going in the Maruti Car No. HP-10-1245 to Dr. Y.S. ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 3 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) Parmar Horticulture University, Solan to bring the seeds of flowers from the University and the said car, being driven by deceased Sanjeev Mehta, skid on the road and vehicle rolled down from the .
road and accident could not be avoided despite every effort made by deceased, and Inder Singh and Sanjeev Mehta expired on the spot, whereas Dinesh suffered injuries.
5 In first response to petition filed on 17.6.2010, owner had denied the status of deceased Sanjeev Mehta as driver with him but had stated that Sanjeev Mehta was never employed as driver but Sanjeev Mehta was relative and friend of the owner and was having valid driving licence and he had requested the owner to hand over the vehicle to him because he and his friends intended to go to the University to take the flowers' seeds from the University and, as such, car was handed over to Sanjeev Mehta and, therefore, it was stated that there was no question of payment of salary to Sanjeev Mehta. It was contended that in case owner was found liable to pay compensation then the said compensation had to be paid by the Insurance Company because the owner was duly insured with insurer and all documents of vehicle including the driving licence of deceased and Insurance Policy were valid on the date of accident. 6 Later on, on 16.8.2013 application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was filed by the owner for filing amended reply to petition. The said application was allowed on 17.9.2013 for pleadings of parties as ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 4 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) well as no objection given by learned counsel representing the Insurance Company as well as the claimants. 7 As per amended reply, deceased Sanjeev Mehta was .
engaged as driver by owner, who was having valid driving licence and there was valid insurance and therefore, liability to pay any compensation to the claimants was of the Insurance Company. It was further admitted that deceased Sanjeev Mehta was driving the car in which Inder Singh and Dinesh (brother of owner) were going to Solan to take the seeds of flowers from the University. 8 Insurance Company had filed reply to petition by taking all objections including the objection that vehicle in reference was not insured with Insurance Company on the date of accident and car was being driven for carrying the passengers and therefore, no compensation was payable by Insurance Company, even if it is found to be insured. Objections with respect to validity of registration certificate, permit and fitness certificate at the time of alleged accident were also taken.
9 After completion of pleadings, issues were framed and thereafter, evidence was led by the parties. 10 Claimants have examined three witnesses. PW1 HC Teja Singh, PW2 Dr. Pawan Sharma and PW3 Madhubala (claimant). The owner had examined himself as RW1. The Insurance Company did not lead any evidence. The owner had produced on record the Screen Report of vehicle Ext.RW1/A. ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 5 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) 11 Thereafter, appreciating the material on record, the MACT has awarded compensation to the claimants by considering his income at the rate of Rs.3300/- per month and after making 1/3rd .
deduction from this amount and adding 50% of the future losses, the MACT has also awarded consortium at the rate of Rs. 1 lacs and funeral charges at the rate of Rs.5000/-.
12 Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, in the present case, for grant of compensation to the claimants being dependent upon the deceased driver, was not maintainable and claim petition, if any, should have been preferred under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (now the Employees Compensation Act). It has been further argued that deceased was related to the owner of vehicle and was not an employee as was denied by the owner in his first reply and, therefore also, deceased was not covered under the Policy of Insurance in reference. It has been further argued that even in case petition is considered to be maintainable under Section 163A of MV Act, then also there was no justification for calculating the amount of compensation payable as per formula or parameters settled by the Courts for deciding the quantum of compensation under Section 166 of MV Act, rather, the compensation should have been determined on the basis of Second Schedule wherein fixed amount of compensation has been provided but with deduction of 1/3rd therefrom and only Rs.2000, Rs.2500/- and Rs.5000/- are payable for funeral expenses, ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 6 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) loss of estate and loss of consortium etc. respectively and therefore, it has been contended that amount of compensation, if any, payable to claimants under Section 163A of MV Act requires to be re-
.
determined in consonance with the provisions of Section 163-A of MV Act read with Schedule-II related thereto. 13 Learned counsel for claimants as well as owner have opposed the plea taken in appeal by re-asserting that deceased Sanjeev Mehta was employed as driver by owner and further that petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act was maintainable in view of settled law as well as Section 167 of the MV Act. It has been further claimed on behalf of claimants that amount of compensation notified in Schedule-II was determined years ago and therefore, keeping in view the inflation and other factors, the Court should award the compensation by determining it on the basis of criteria adopted for determining the compensation under Section 166 of MV Act. 14 To substantiate their respective pleas, learned counsel for parties have referred judgments in G.M.,N.F. Railway Malegaon, Guwahati vs. Jitendra Shah and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 3398; Deepal Girishbhai Soni and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd reported in (2004)5 SCC 385; Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104; R.K. Malik and another vs. Kiran Pal and others reported in (2009)14 SCC 1; United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Sunil Kumar and another ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 7 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) reported in(2014)1 SCC 680; National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017)16 SCC 680 and (2020)2 SCC 550 titled Ramkhiladi vs The United India .
Insurance Company.
15 Plea regarding the denial of status of deceased Sanjeev Mehta as driver of vehicle is not sustainable in this appeal as the amended reply was taken on record after communication of no objection by the counsel for opposite parties including the counsel representing the Insurance Company. Otherwise also, the plea taken in first reply of owner was also not reliable and tenable as in the said reply it was claimed by the owner of vehicle that vehicle was borrowed by deceased Sanjeev Mehta for performing journey with his friends who were not related to owner, whereas, it is admitted fact that in the said vehicle, one Inder Singh (relative of owner) and Dinesh (brother of owner) were going to the University for bringing the seeds of flowers. No evidence has been led to prove contrary. Therefore, considering the entire material on record, preponderance of probability lies in favour of claimants that Sanjeev was employed as driver of owner.
16 In given facts and circumstances, judgment in Ramkhiladi's case is not relevant.
17 Plea with respect to maintainability of petition under Section 163A of the MV Act is also not tenable in view of provisions of Section 167 of the MV Act, wherein it has been provided that ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 8 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) claimants have option regarding claims for compensation and notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, where the death of, or bodily injury to, any person gives .
rise to a claim for compensation under MV Act and also under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the person entitled for compensation may, without prejudice to the provisions of Chapter X, claim such compensation under either of those Acts but not under both.
18 In present case, claim petition has been preferred only under Section 163A of MV Act, but no petition has been preferred under Workmen's Compensation Act.
19 Section 163A of MV Act provides that claim petition can be preferred for claim of compensation arising out of the motor accident under Section 163A of MV Act on the basis of structured formula and in such petition, rash or negligent driving is not necessary ingredient to be proved.
20 Considering the aforesaid provisions of law as well as pronouncements, referred supra, I am of considered opinion that in present case, claim petition under Section 163A of MV Act was and is maintainable.
21 Ground for assailing the award taken by Insurance Company with respect to quantum of compensation has force. For awarding the compensation under Section 163A of MV Act, the quantum is to be determined on the basis of structured formula as ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 9 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) provided in the Second Schedule. It has come in evidence as also admitted by owner that Sanjeev Mehta was employed as driver at the rate of Rs.3300/- per month. The said fact has not been controverted .
by Insurance Company by leading any evidence. In fact, Insurance Company has not led any evidence in the matter to rebut the plea of claimants which has also been admitted by owner of vehicle. In appeal also, no such plea has been raised. Deceased was 33 years old and by applying formula as provided in Second Schedule, multiplier of 16 was applicable and as per Schedule, claimants are entitled for compensation on account of death shall be 3300 x 12 x 16=39,600x16=6,33,600/-.
22 As per Note-1, appended below the Second Schedule, 1/3 amount has to be deducted for expenses which the deceased would have incurred towards maintaining himself, had he been alive. Therefore, compensation payable to claimants shall be 6,33,600- 2,11,200=4,22,400/-.
23 As per Note-3, below the Schedule, the claimants shall be entitled for funeral expenses of Rs.2000/-, loss of consortium to spouse at the rate of Rs.5000/- and loss of estate at the rate of Rs.2500/-.
24 In view of above, the total compensation shall be 4,22,400 + 9,500= 4,31,900/-. Learned MACT has committed a mistake by determining the compensation by applying parameters applicable to claim petition under Section 166 of MV Act and ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS 10 ( 2025:HHC:33012 ) therefore, to that extent, award deserves to be interfered with and claimants shall be entitled for compensation as determined supra as per Second Schedule with respect to Section 163A of the MV Act.
.
25 Claimant-wife shall be entitled for Rs.9500/- and proportionate interest thereon, for loss of consortium, estate and funeral expenses. Remaining compensation shall be apportioned amongst all claimants as apportioned hereinafter. 26 Claimant No.1 Madhu Bala shall be entitled for 40% of amount of compensation and other claimants shall be entitled for compensation in the ratio of 20% each as already determined by the MACT. On the aforesaid compensation amount, the claimants shall also be held entitled for interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till payment/deposit of amount. 27 In view of above, claimants are held entitled for compensation of Rs.4,31,900/- and interest thereon at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till payment/deposit thereof. The impugned award is modified in aforesaid terms.
The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.
23rd September, 2025(MS) ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2025 21:29:09 :::CIS