National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Devi and others

FIR No.241/2011 at Police Station, concerning the accident, but had manipulated the facts to save the rider of the motorcycle as he was son of SHO of Police Station, Mcleodganj, District Kangra, H.P. - 3 - 2025:HHC:38519

#5. The claimants had claimed that the deceased was working as salesman in a private company at Delhi and his earning by way of salary was Rs.25,000/- per month. The claimants further claimed themselves to be dependent on the deceased for livelihood.

#6. The rider and owner in their joint reply to the claim petition contested the claim of the claimants. It was alleged that the rider had not met with an accident on 02.11.2011. It was specifically contended that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a white coloured jeep. The rider and owner, for such purpose, had placed reliance on the contents of the FIR.

#7. The insurer also contested the claim petition on the ground that the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was alleged that the accident had been caused by a white coloured jeep. The involvelent of rider of motorcycle bearing No. HP-35-1635 in the accident was denied in addition objections regarding breach of terms of insurance policy were taken. It was alleged that the rider was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. The questions were also - 4 - 2025:HHC:38519 raised regarding the validity of registration certificate of the vehicle.

#8. Learned Tribunal had framed the following issues: (1) Whether respondent No.1 driven vehicle (motorcycle bearing no. HP-35-1635) rashly and negligently on 02.11.2011 and caused death of Gurcharan Singh? OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved, to what compensation, petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP. 3) Whether petition is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary parties? OPR 1 & 3 4) Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR 5) Whether respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR-3 6) Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy? OPR-3

#7. Relief.

#9. Issues No. 1 & 2 were answered in affirmative, whereas all other issues were answered in negative. The claimants have been held entitled to compensation of Rs.6,78,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the - 5 - 2025:HHC:38519 date of filing of the petition till realization under the following heads:- (i) Loss of dependency = Rs.4,68,000/- (ii) Loss of consortium = Rs. 2,00,000/- (iii) Charges for funeral = Rs. 10,000/- and last rites Total = Rs. 6,78,000/-

#10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully.

#11. By placing reliance on the contents of FIR Ext.RW-1/D, learned counsel for the insurer/appellant has taken exception to the findings returned by learned Tribunal on issue No.1.

#12. Learned Tribunal has discredited the version recorded in the FIR by weighing the same against the ocular testimony of PW-5 Partap Chand. Learned Tribunal has also into consideration the contents of documents Ext. PW-1/A and Ext.PW-1/B to hold that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent riding by the rider of motorcycle bearing No. HP-35-1635. Noticeably, the FIR Ext.RW-1/D was registered at the instance of one Sanjay - 6 - 2025:HHC:38519 Guleria. He had reported to the police that on 02.11.2011 at about 1.45 p.m. he was travelling from Yol to Chamunda on his motorcycle. He noticed that at Nabha Chowk, Yol Camp, a pedestrian was hit by a speeding white coloured loader, as a result of which, the pedestrian fell on the road. It was also reported that the jeep was also hit a motorcycle with two persons on it, who also had fallen on the road. Many persons had gathered on the road. The said informant had tried to chase the jeep, but could not succeed. In this manner, the cause of accident was attributed to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep.

#13. The alleged informant Sanjay Guleria was not examined as a witness in the case. Thus, the version recorded in the FIR Ext.RW-1/D, had not been proved in accordance with law. Even otherwise, the material on record suggested the certain facts which are sufficient to suspect the version so recorded in the FIR. The time of recording of FIR is 6.00 p.m. There is no explanation as to why the alleged informant Sanjay Guleria did not report the matter to the police till 6.00 p.m. In addition, in the FIR itself, it has been recorded that at about - 7 - 2025:HHC:38519

1.50 p.m. on 02.11.2011 HC Rajender Singh No.60 of Traffic, Police Station, Chamunda had received information regarding the accident and thereafter he had visited the spot immediately alongwith C.Yashpal No. 595, where it was found that all the three injured had been sent for treatment to Tanda Medical College. This again creates suspicion as there is no explanation why HC Rajender Singh had not got recorded the FIR at Police Station immediately.

#14. On the other hand, the claimants examined PW-5 as a witness, who narrated the accident to have taken place in his presence. According to this witness, deceased was hit by the rider of motorcycle No. HP 35-1635, who was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. Additionally, the witness PW-1 had also drawn hypothesis on the basis of spot position that the deceased was hit by the motorcycle.

#15. Thus, the findings of learned Tribunal on issue No.1 cannot be faulted, which is duly borne from the material on record. - 8 - 2025:HHC:38519

#16. Learned counsel for the insurer/appellant has next contended that the quantum of compensation had excessively been assessed by the learned Tribunal.

#17. Learned Tribunal has assessed the income of deceased as Rs.4500/- per month on presumption by making reference to minimum wages. However, there is no specific reference as to how learned Tribunal has presumed the minimum wages of deceased to be Rs.4500/- per month. The accident had taken place in November, 2011. As per the notification issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh, notifying the minimum wages on 01.10.2011, the minimum wages of unskilled workman was Rs.120/- per day i.e. Rs.3600/- per month. No doubt, for making assessment of income of deceased where it is not documented, the Tribunal or the Court can use some guess work, but it has to meet realistic parameters. Thus, the presumption of income of the deceased at Rs.4500/- per month had no basis, whereas, the notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act suggested such wages to be Rs.3600/- per month. - 9 - 2025:HHC:38519

#18. Learned Tribunal has made further assessment of compensation by basing the monthly income at Rs.4500/-. Though, the said income needs to be reduced to bring it in terms of the Minimum Wages Act prevalent at the relevant time, an addition of 25% is required to be made in terms of the judgment passed by Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 16 SCC 680. In this view of the matter, the net result again would be that the monthly income of deceased would be Rs.4500/- per month.

#19. Learned Tribunal has made a deduction of 1/3rd of monthly income of deceased on account of his personal expenses, which again is not in conformity with the judgment passed in Pranay Sethi (supra). Since, the deceased had left behind four dependents; the deduction on account of personal expenses of deceased was liable to be made 25% i.e. 1/4th of the monthly income. Hence, the loss of monthly dependency would be Rs.4500 – Rs.1125/- = Rs. 3375/- and the multiplier applicable in the case as per judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. DTC (2009) 6 SCC 121, - 10 - 2025:HHC:38519 would be of 13 and, as such, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.3375x12x13 = Rs.5,26,500/-.

#20. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to each of the claimants on account of loss of consortium, which again is not in conformity with the mandate of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram (2018) 18 SCC 130. The loss of consortium under conservative head has to be Rs.40,000/- on each dependent. Similarly, the compensation of Rs.10,000/- has been awarded as funeral charges, which also requires modification as per Pranay Sethi (supra) and has to be awarded Rs.15,000/-. An additional amount of Rs.15,000/- is also required to be awarded on account of loss of estate.

#21. Thus, on re-calculation of compensation in light of what has been discussed above, the claimants are held entitled to the following amounts:-

#1. Loss of dependency = 3375x12x13 = Rs.5,26,500/- = Rs.1,60,000/- 2. Loss of consortium = Rs. 15,000/- 3. Loss of estate = Rs. 15,000/- 4. Funeral charges = Rs.7,16,500/- Total - 11 - 2025:HHC:38519

#22. In Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza and others vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service (2013) 16 SCC 719, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Tribunal or Court are empowered to enhance the compensation even at appellate stage to make out just, fair and adequate compensation and to fulfill the intent of legislation.

#23. The claimants shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum as awarded by learned Tribunal. The apportionment shall be as under:- Claimant No.1 : = 40% Claimants No. 2 to 4: = 20% each.

#24. In result, the appeal is accordingly disposed of. The impugned award dated 11.04.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Palampur, in MACP No. 47-D/II/2012, is modified as detailed hereinabove.

#25. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 17th November, 2025 (GR) (Satyen Vaidya) Judge