Himachal Pradesh High Court
FAO/130/2015 on 15 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
FAO (MV) No. 130 of 2015
Decided on : 15.10.2026
Rajni Bala Mishra & Anr
....Appellants
Versus
Branch Manager, Reliance General Ins. Co. & Ors.
...Respondents
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the appellants:
Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:
Mr. Chandan Goel, Advocate,
for respondent No. 1.
Mr. K.R. Kashyap, Advocate,
for respondents No. 2 to 4.
Virender Singh, Judge (Oral)
The appellants have filed the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 06.01.2015, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur, District Shimla, H.P.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No.
0100016 of 2011, titled as ‘Smt. Sanju Devi & Ors. Versus Smt. Rajni Bala Mishra & Ors.”.
2.
By way of the award, dated 06.01.2015, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition filed by respondents No. 2 to 4, as well as, one Smt. Chopu Devi and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,87,000/, along with interest at the rate of 6%
per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till the deposit of the awarded amount. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the present appellants.
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 filing of the present appeal, before this Court, as borne out from the record, may be summed up, as under:
4.1
Petitioners being wife, daughters and mother of Sh. Mohar Singh, had filed the above titled claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, seeking compensation, from
the respondents, on account of death of Sh. Mohar Singh, in a road side accident, which, had taken place on 06.01.2011, at about 8:30 pm, at Bari Mod near Nagan, Tehsil Anni, District Kullu, H.P., involving the vehicle/truck bearing No.
HP351851 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No. 1, driven by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3.
4.2
According to the petitioners, the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, as he could not control the offending vehicle, which went off the road and fell about 200 feet into a gorge. At the time of death of Sh. Mohar Singh, he was 27 years of age and working as ManagercumSupervisor in Misra Enterprises at Anni and as such, he was earning Rs. 19,000/ per month.
4.3
The information regarding the accident was given to the police of Police Station Anni, where FIR No. 4/2011
dated 07.01.2011, was registered.
4.4
Since, the accident in question had solely been attributed to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, as such, the petitioners have sought
amount of compensation of Rs. 17,00,000/, from the respondents.
5.
When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents, by filing reply.
5.1
Respondents No. 1 and 2, have admitted the factum of accident, but according to them, deceased was, in fact, a delivery boy meant for delivery of filled LPG gas cylinders to consumers and they used to pay him Rs. 4,000/
per month. Registration of FIR has also not been disputed.
5.2
Respondent No. 3 filed the separate reply, by taking preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable; the offending vehicle is being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy; the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, at the time of accident; the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized/gratuitous passenger; and there is collusion between the petitioners and respondent No. 1
5.3
On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied, for want of knowledge.
5.4
Thus, the respondents have prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.
6.
From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal on 27.02.2013:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether late Sh. Mohar Singh had died on account of injuries sustained by him due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP351851 being driven by respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP
2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, was not possessed of valid and effective driving licence? OPR3
4. Whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicle, at the relevant time, as gratuitous passenger? OPR3
5. Whether the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR3
6. Relief.
7. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence.
8. After the closure of evidence and hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned Tribunal has allowed the petition, as referred to above, by fastening the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon respondents No. 1 and 2 (appellants)owner and driver of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally.
9. Feeling aggrieved from the said award, appellants owner and driver of the offending vehicle, have filed the present FAO, disputing their liability to pay the amount of compensation.
10. According to them, the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the monthly income of deceased as Rs. 4,000/, also wrongly deducted 1/4th of the said amount, on account of personal expenses, and wrong multiplier has been applied. The learned Tribunal has wrongly held that Sh. Mohan Singh and Dharam Pal were traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers. The learned Tribunal has wrongly held that the deceased was a delivery boy and was engaged for loading and unloading the LPG gas cylinders, as such, it has been held that he was not covered by insurance policy Ext. RW2/A.
11. On the basis of the grounds of appeal, Mr. Sumit Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the appellants, has prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, by fastening the ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation, upon the Insurance Company.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, has supported the award and prayed that the learned Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability, upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle.
13. Heard.
14. The learned Tribunal, has fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation, upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, by considering the evidence, so adduced by the parties. Moreover, it is the case of the respondents themselves that Sh. Mohar Singh was delivery boy, meant to deliver the filled LPG gas cylinder to consumers. The insurance policy is on the record.
15. The offending vehicle was Goods Carrier Vehicle and as per the case set up by the petitioners, deceased was neither driver, nor cleaner, nor fair paying passenger. The delivery boy has not been covered by the policy. Respondent No. 1 has not proved, in this case, that any premium for legal liability of a person employed in connection with the operation i.e. loading and unloading of LPG gas cylinders, was paid as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
16. In such situation, there is no occasion for this Court to differ with the findings, so recorded by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
17. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
18. Memo of costs be prepared accordingly.
19. Record be sent back.
(Virender Singh) Judge 15th October, 2026 (Pramod Kumar)