FAO/254/2014 on 13 October 2026

2026:HHC:44978-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO (MV) No. 254 of 2014 Reserved on: 24.09.2026 Date of decision: 13.10.2026 Date of uploading on Website: 13.10.2026 ____________________________________________________ Amari Devi & others ...Appellants Versus The Oriental Insurance Company & another …Respondents ____________________________________________________

Coram

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? ____________________________________________________ For the appellants: Mr. Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. C.N. Singh, Dr. Nidhi Singh & Mr.Anshul Gandhi, Advocates, for respondent No.2. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The present appeal is maintained by the appellants- petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “M.V. Act”), against award dated 30.09.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, Camp at Bilaspur, in M.A.C. No.4-2 of 2008, with the prayer to quash and set aside the impugned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2 2026:HHC:44978-DB award and they may be awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.11,14,284/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum. The parties shall be referred to as they were before the learned Tribunal below.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the petitioners filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of MV Act before the learned Tribunal below, whereby they sought compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- on account of death of Dalel Singh, who was husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 5. It was averred by the petitioners that Dalel Singh was employed as HC/Driver in CISF, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. On 30.10.2004, he was deployed at Nakrod barrier alongwith constable Lajpat Rai of CISF Unit and while driving the vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.HP-44-0795, when he was returning back to Bera Dam after distributing the meals to CISF personnel, then at about 07.30 PM, he lost control over the vehicle due to failure of the steering wheel system at place known as Kund Mour, as a result of which, the truck fell down into a deep nullah. Thereafter, injured constable Lajpat Rai was shifted to Government Hospital Tissa, where he was declared

3 2026:HHC:44978-DB dead by the doctor. However, the dead body of driver Dalel Singh could not recovered due to dense forest and it was recovered on next day on 31.10.2004. As per the petitioners, at the time of his death, deceased Dalel Singh was aged about 51 years and he was employed as HC/driver and was getting Rs.7,812/- per month as salary.

3. In the reply filed by respondent No.1-Oriental Insurance Company, preliminary objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction, cause of action, respondent No.1 had not issued any policy of insurance insuring or contracting to indemnify respondent No.2, the deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven without valid registration and fitness certificate and route permit. On merits, it was averred that the accident had taken place due to the negligence of the deceased himself. It was further averred that the deceased was getting salary more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, as such, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear and try the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle, in its reply, raised preliminary objections qua maintainability and concealment of material facts. On merits, it was averred that the

4 2026:HHC:44978-DB petitioners were not entitled to any compensation as the petition was not maintainable in the eyes of law.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 03.03.2010:- “1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation in respect of death of Shri Dalel Singh, which took place in motor accident involving truck No. HP-44-0795 and if so what amount? ….OPP

2. Whether this claim petition is not maintainable in the present form? ....OPR

3. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition? ...OPR

4. Whether the deceased Dalel Singh was not having valid and effective driving licence? ...OPR

5. Whether the truck No.HP-44-0795 was being plied without valid document, as alleged? ..OPR

6. Relief.”

6. After parties led their evidence, the claim petition was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved/dissatisfied, the appellants- petitioners preferred the instant appeal against the impugned award dated 30.09.2013 passed by the learned Tribunal below, with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award and to allow the claim petition, thereby awarding a just and fair compensation in their favour.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the

5 2026:HHC:44978-DB impugned award is against the law and facts and the petitioners are entitled to grant of compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of MV Act, as being not maintainable on the ground that income of the deceased was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal below and contended that the impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective, hence, prayed for dismissal of the instant appeal.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and also carefully examined the entire record.

10. The only issue to be considered by this Court is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of MV Act, as being not maintainable on the ground that income of the deceased has been pleaded as Rs.7,812/- per month.

6 2026:HHC:44978-DB

11. Section 163-A of MV Act contains special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis as indicated in the Second Schedule of the Act. As per the Second Schedule of the Act, in order to invoke Section 163-A, the limitation of income is Rs.40,000/- per annum. At this stage, it would be relevant to reproduce Section 163-A of MV Act, which reads as under:- “163A. Special provisions as to payment of compensation on structured formula basis

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any other law for the time being in force or instrument having the force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be. Explanation : For the purposes of this sub-section, “permanent disability” shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923).

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (1), the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person.

(3) The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time amend the Second Schedule.”

12. Thus, from perusal of Section 163-A and Second Schedule thereunder, it is seen that for filing a petition under

7 2026:HHC:44978-DB the aforesaid Section, income of the person should not be more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, if a claim petition is to be filed under this section.

13. In Deepal Girishbhai Soni & others Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., Baroda, (2004) 5 SCC 385, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that if a person invokes the provisions of Section 163-A of MV Act, the annual income of Rs.40,000/- shall be treated as a cap. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:- "51. The scheme envisaged under Section 163A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set-off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs.40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society."

14. In the case on hand, petitioner No.1 Amari Devi, while appearing in the witness-box as PW-2, tendered in evidence her affidavit Ext. PW1/A, wherein she stated that the income of the deceased was Rs.7,812/- per month. In her cross-examination, she stated that she was getting family

8 2026:HHC:44978-DB pension in the sum of Rs.5,500/- per month. Thus, as per petitioners themselves, the monthly income of the deceased was Rs.7,812/-, that is to say, his annual income was Rs.93,744/-. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishibhai Soni (supra) as also the object behind insertion of Section 163-A of MV Act, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal below has not committed any illegality in dismissing the claim petition being not maintainable as the deceased was earning more than Rs.40,000/- per annum.

15. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, no interference is required in the impugned award dated 30.09.2013, passed by the learned Tribunal below. Consequently, the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

( Sushil Kukreja )

Judge

October 13, 2026 (V. HImalvi)