FAO/162/2014 on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. 162 of 2014 Date of decision: 14

.10.2026 ________________________________________________ UIIC Ltd.

…..Appellant Versus Radha Devi & Ors. ……Respondents ________________________________________________

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? Yes. ________________________________________________ For the appellant: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Vijay Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Name of respondent No. 2 stands deleted. None for respondents No. 3 &

4. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant/Insurance Company, who was respondent No. 1 before the learned Court below, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’), against impugned award, dated 16.01.2014, passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Chamba, District Chamba, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby, MAC Petition No. 126/12, filed by the

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

petitioners, under Section 163-A of the Act was allowed with costs and they were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,42,715/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of Award amount and respondent No. 1/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned Tribunal below.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 01.05.2009, Gagan Singh (since deceased) was driving vehicle bearing registration No. DL-9-CK-8858 and when the said vehicle reached near over bridge Rajpura, it met with an accident due to negligence on the part of the driver of vehicle No. HR-63-1128, who had parked the same in the middle of the road without switching on the indicators, which resulted into the death of Gagan Singh. As per the petitioners, the deceased was employed by respondents No. 2 & 3 on monthly salary of Rs. 3,300/- and he was the sole bread earner of the family. Hence, the petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of MV Act seeking compensation.

3. Respondent No. 1/Insurance Company by filing reply, took preliminary objections qua maintainability, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and that the petition is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the averments made in the petition have been denied and it has been stated that the vehicle was not being plied in accordance with the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act as well as terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. It has further been stated that the vehicle was not having valid registration certificate.

4. The respondents No. 2 & 3 by filing separate replies contested the petition on the ground of maintainability and that the vehicle was comprehensively insured with respondent No. 1 and in case petitioners are found entitled for compensation, then respondents No. 2 & 3 are not liable to pay the same. It has been stated that compensation amount, being claimed by the petitioner is too excessive and imaginary.

5. In rejoinder to the reply filed by respondent No. 1, contents of the replies have been denied and that of the petition are re-affirmed.

6. On 20.07.2013, the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication: “1. Whether the deceased Gagan Singh had died on account of accident of vehicle No. DL-9CK-8848 after vehicle met with an accident on 1-5-2009, around 1-00 PM near Rajpur over bridge Rajpura, P.S. Rajpura City Distt. Patiala as alleged? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for the grant of compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPR 2 & 3

4. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence as alleged? OPR-1

5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and terms and conditions of Insurance Policy as alleged? OPR-1

6. Whether the vehicle was not having valid registration certificate as alleged? OPR-1

7. Relief.”

7. After the parties led evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the petition filed by the petitioners was allowed with costs and they were held entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,42,715/- alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till deposit of Award amount and respondent No. 1/Insurance Company was held liable to pay the amount of compensation.

8. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/Insurance Company preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 16.01.2014.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and carefully examined the entire record.

10. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal below has erred in law in granting compensation to the petitioners under Section 166 of the Act despite the fact that the petitioners had sought compensation under specific provisions of Section 163-A of the Act. He further contended that the learned Tribunal below ought to have granted compensation to the petitioners in accordance with Schedule-II, under Section 163-A of the Act.

11. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No. 1

supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the instant petition.

12. The perusal of available material on record reveals that the petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act for grant of compensation on account of death of Gagan Singh, who was the husband of petitioner No. 1, Radha Devi and father of petitioners No. 2 and 3, i.e., Rohit and Babita Devi (minors), respectively. However, the learned Tribunal below had awarded the compensation in the sum of Rs. 8,42,715/-, as if it was a petition under Section 166 of the Act.

13. Although the Act is a beneficial one and, thus, deserves liberal construction with a view to implement the legislative intent but it is trite that where such beneficial legislation has a scheme of its own and there is no vagueness or doubt therein, the court would not travel beyond the same and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory benefit to those who are not covered thereby. Needless to state that section 163-A of the Act contains a special provision as to the payment of compensation on structured formula basis, as indicated in Schedule-II to the Act. As per Schedule-II under Section 163A of the Act, compensation has to be assessed on the basis of structured formula. Any claim made under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 exempts the claimant from proving the negligence on the part of the offending vehicle. It is a settled principle of law that even if the claimant is at fault; he can resort to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The basis on which the dependents of a deceased in case of his death, or the victim himself in case of permanent disability can be entitled to compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are different from the requirements of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The principles of law settled by the court or a precedent in respect of an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be used as a strait jacket formula in respect of a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the principles of law as enunciated in National Insurance Company Limited Versus Pranay Sethi &

others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, and Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 regarding adding additional amount towards future prospects in case of applications under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot as a general rule be applied in respect of an application filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

14. In the case on hand, the petitioners have claimed that the deceased was earning Rs. 3,300/- per month and the learned Tribunal below had rightly assessed the income of the deceased @ Rs. 3,300/- per month at the time of his death. Since there were three family members who were dependent upon the income of the deceased at the time of accident, therefore, on the basis of structured formula, 1/3rd of his income is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses. After deducting 1/3rd of the amount from the monthly income of the deceased, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 2200/- per month. Admittedly the age of the deceased was 37 years at the time of the accident. Thus, by applying the multiplier of 16, the compensation under the head loss of dependency is fixed at Rs. 4,22,400/- (2200/- x 12 x 16)

15. In addition, the Tribunal has chosen to award Rs. 10,000/- for transportation of body, Rs. 10,000/- for loss of love and affection, Rs. 5,000/- for funeral expenses, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs. 1,00,000/- to petitioners No. 2 & 3 being minors as compensation. In the opinion of this court, when a claim is made under Section 163-A, the conventional damages shall be in accordance with Schedule-II to the Act and the principles of law under general damages cannot be applied to an application under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 because Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act in no uncertain manner envisages that as per clause 3(i), funeral expenses awardable shall be Rs. 2,000/-, as per clause 3(ii), compensation for loss of consortium shall be Rs. 5,000/-. Clause 3(iii) states that a sum of Rs. 2,500/- shall be payable as compensation for loss of estate which the Tribunal has omitted to do. So this Court is of the considered view that under the conventional heads, the claimants are entitled to general damages of Rs. 9,500/- only.

16. All the above aspects will go to show that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in passing the above said award in every respect. The award of the Tribunal is defective, infirm and unsustainable in law, which has got to be interfered with and corrected by this Court in exercise of its appellate powers.

17. Hence, in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed. The petitioners are held entitled to compensation in the sum of Rs. 4,31,900/- (4,22,400/- +9,500/-) from the Insurance Company. The remaining terms of the impugned award, including the interest component as well as the apportionment amongst the petitioners, shall remain the same.

18. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any.

( Sushil Kukreja )

Judge October 14, 2026 (raman)