Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Meera Kanwar & Others on 16 July, 2025
2025:HHC:23001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
FAO Nos. 521 & 562 of 2019
Reserved on: 27.6.2025
.
Date of decision: 16.07.2025.
1. FAO No. 521 of 2019
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Meera Kanwar & others. ...Respondents.
2. FAO No. 562 of 2019
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
r to ....Appellant
Versus
Meera Kanwar & others ....Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
For the appellants : Mr. Ashwani Sharma, Sr. Advocate
with Ms. Nisha, Advocate.
For the respondents : Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma,
Advocate, for respondent No.1 in
FAO No. 521 of 2019 and for
respondents No. 1 and 2 in FAO
No. 562 of 2019.
Ms. Subh Mahajan, Advocate, for
respondent No.2 in FAO No. 521 of
2019 and for respondent No.3 in
FAO No. 562 of 2019.
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS
2
Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate, for
respondent No.5 in FAO No. 521 of
2019 and for respondent No.6 in
FAO No. 562 of 2019
.
Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, for
respondent No.6 in FAO No. 521 of
2019 and for respondent No. 7 in
FAO No. 562 of 2019.
Satyen Vaidya, Judge:
Both these appeals were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment as common questions of facts and law are involved.
2. On the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd August, 2014, an accident took place at Chandigarh involving Volvo Bus No. HP635729 and Swift Car No. HP03T4103.
There was a collision between both the vehicles.
3. In the said accident respondent No.1 Meera Kanwar received personal injuries and her daughter Deepali Kanwar lost her life. Both were the occupants of Volvo Bus No. HP635729.
4. MACT No. 38D/11/14 was the claim petition filed by Meera Kanwar for compensation on account of injuries and disablement suffered by her and MACT No. ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 3 37D/11/14 was filed by Meera Kanwar and her husband Vinod Kumar, seeking compensation on account of death .
of their daughter Deepali Kanwar.
5. Learned Motor Accident Claims TribunalIV, Kangra at Dharmshala (for short the 'Tribunal') has decided both the claim petitions vide separate awards dated 30.8.2019. In MACT No. 38D/11/14 compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/ with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization has been awarded and in MACT No. 37D/11/14 a sum of Rs.
11,07,456/ with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization has been awarded to Meera Kanwar and her husband Vinod Kumar.
6. The liability to satisfy both the awards has been fastened upon the appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. being the insurer of Volvo Bus No. HP635729. The learned Tribunal has held the respondent HRTC, Satish Sehrawat and Surender Singh being the hirer, owner and driver of Bus No. HP635729 liable to pay the ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 4 compensation in both the cases and since the said bus was insured by the appellant Insurance Company, it has been .
directed to discharge the liability.
7. In both the appeals, the impugned awards have been challenged to the extent of the findings of learned Tribunal indicting Surender Singh, the driver of bus for causing accident by his rash and negligent driving.
8. In FAO NO. 562 of 2019 arising from MACT No. 37D/11/14, additional challenge to the quantum of compensation has also been raised.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.
10. In claim petitions, it was specifically alleged that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus No. HP635729 and driver of Swift Car No. HP03T4103. In addition, petitioner Meera Kanwar had examined herself as a witness and in her deposition had consistently maintained the same stand that the accident had been caused by rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. She ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 5 stated that on the intervening night of 22nd and 23rd August, 2014, she along with her daughter was travelling .
in Volvo Bus No. HP635729 from Dharmshala to Delhi.
They were occupying seat Nos. 15 and 16. The bus was being driven rashly. At about 2.00 AM, when the bus was crossing Chandigarh City, at a road junction, the bus collided with the Car No. HP03T4103. In the said accident, she along with her daughter received injuries, which resulted in 10% permanent disablement of petitioner Meera Kanwar and death of her daughter Deepali Kanwar.
11. The driver of the bus Surender Singh has also been examined as a witness. While making the deposition, this witness has stated that he was not at fault and the entire fault was that of the driver of the car. He narrated that when the bus had reached the light point of Sector49, Chandigarh at about 1.45. AM a Car bearing HP03T4103 came from the divider point of driver side in a high speed and directly struck against the bus on the driver side behind the front tyre. He further stated that the FIR ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 6 registered against him was based on false facts in order to save the driver of the car.
.
12. Another witness is Gopal Krishan, an official of appellant Insurance Company. Though, he was not an eye witness to the accident but he deposed that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car and the basis of his deposition was the contents of a DVD containing CCTV footage of the spot of accident exhibited on record as RW2/D. According to this witness, the CCTV footage in a DVD was provided to the appellant company by the police in response to information sought under the RTI Act.
13. No other witness was examined by either of the parties with respect to the cause of accident. Noticeably, the driver and other occupants of the car have died. None from the other occupants of the bus was examined as witness.
14. FIR Ext. PW3/A was registered at Police Station, Sector34, Chandigarh. Its contents reveal that the FIR was registered on the basis of information provided by the ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 7 police officials, who were on patrol duty. None of these police officials have also been examined as a witness.
.
15. Learned Tribunal has returned the findings on the issue regarding cause of accident in following terms: "31. Thus, while weighing and balancing the evidence of the respondents with the evidence of the petitioners, the documentary and oral evidence of the respondents No.1 to 4 stands negatived, negated, rebutted, dislodged and displaced and the evidence of the petitioner goes to clearly establish that on 23.8.2014, the petitioner Meera Kanwar along with her daughter deceased Deepali Kanwar was travelling from Dharamshala to Delhi in the Volvo Bus No.HP635729 owned by the respondent No.2 and hired by the respondent No.1 being driven by the respondent No.3 Surender Singh and when, the aforesaid bus reached at Chandigarh Crossing and it was being driven by the respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner and the bus hit with Swift Car No.HP 03T4103 being driven by the son of the respondent No.5 in a rash and negligent manner and Deepali Kanwar daughter of the petitioner sustained multiple grievous injuries and the petitioner Meera Kanwar also sustained injuries causing 10% permanent disability and impairment i.e. right stiff wrist and left stiff knee and she spent ₹ 70,000/ for treatment for injuries so sustained by her in the accident.
46. Now comes the question that from whom the petitioner is entitled to this amount of compensation. It has come in the evidence that at the time of accident, the offending ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 8 vehicle Volvo Bus bearing registration No.HP63 5729 was owned by the respondent No.2 and engaged by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.3 was its driver .
and whereas, the Volvo Bus bearing registration No.HP 63 5729 was admittedly insured with the respondent No.4 i.e. National Insurance Company Ltd. Therefore, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 are jointly liable to pay this compensation amount to the petitioner. But, since the bus in question was insured with the respondent No.4, Therefore, the respondents No.1, 2 and 3 have to be indemnified by the respondent No.4 for payment of the aforesaid compensation and hence, the aforesaid compensation amount is to be paid by the respondent No.4 to the petitioner. Hence, the issues No.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner and the same are as such answered in the affirmative. Whereas, the issue No.4 is decided in favour of the respondent No.4 and the issues No. 5 and 6 are decided against the respondent No.4 and the issues No.7 and 8 are decided against the respondent No.6 accordingly."
'Emphasis added'
16. Markedly, the learned Tribunal has found the cause of accident to be rash and negligent of both the drivers, yet for unexplained reasons, the liability has been fastened upon the owner and driver of the bus and consequently, the appellant Insurance Company has only been held liable to indemnify the award.
::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS9
17. The learned Tribunal has found the testimony of claimant Meera Kanwar to be consistent in respect of .
cause of accident being rash and negligent of both the drivers. The testimony of Surender Singh driver of the bus has been disbelieved for the reason that there was no plausible explanation for his implication in the criminal case registered vide FIR Ext. PW3/A. The version of this witness to the effect that he was implicated falsely to save the driver of the car has been brushed aside on the ground that the driver of the car had already died and there could not have been any question to save him. As regards the CCTV footage contained in DVD PW2/D, the learned Tribunal has held such piece of evidence to have not been proved in accordance with law. The learned Tribunal has held that the witness Gopal Krishan had not procured the documents himself, rather it was stated to have been procured by an investigator engaged by the appellant.
18. As noticed above, only two eye witnesses have deposed in the case. One is the claimant Meera Kanwar and the other is driver of bus Surender Singh. Though, ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 10 claimant Meera Kanwar while appearing as a witness has stated that she did not witness the accident, nonetheless, .
it cannot be disputed that she was travelling in the bus. It has been categorically stated by Meera Kanwar in her deposition that the bus was being driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver Surender Singh. She also stated that even the driver of the car was driving it rashly and negligently. The facts, thus, perceived by the claimant Meera Kanwar cannot be brushed aside as she did not appear to have interest to side with either party.
19. The story narrated by the driver Surender Singh while deposing before the Tribunal cannot be swallowed without a pinch of salt. The reason is simple that this witness has every interest to save himself by implicating the other. Another reason to treat the version of driver Surender Singh with suspicion is that in the reply filed by him before the learned Tribunal, except for denying the allegation of negligence, nothing more had been stated by him. It will be relevant to reproduce the extract of his reply as under: ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 11 "Para6. Reply to para 24 denied. The accident was (sic) took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Swift Car No. HP03T4103 and replying respondent was .
not at fault as such, the replying respondent is not responsible to pay compensation to the petitioner."
20. As regards the DVD Ext. RW2/D, the same has been rightly rejected and disbelieved by the learned Tribunal as having not been proved in accordance with law. RW2 Gopal Krishan admitted that the DVD was procured by an investigator engaged by the appellant Insurance Company. The investigator was not examined.
The author of the document, who allegedly had prepared this DVD was also not produced in the witness box. Even the document Ext. RW2/B by which the DVD was allegedly provided to the appellant by police has not been proved in accordance with law. Furthermore, there is no evidence to vouch for the authenticity of the contents of DVD RW2/D.
21. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on document Ext. RA, which is a copy of a common award passed by the learned MACT, Chandigarh in claim petitions arising out of the same accident, in ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 12 which the accident was held not to have caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. He .
contended that in view of the specific findings recorded by the MACT, Chandigarh, the learned Tribunal could not return altogether different findings. The contention so raised on behalf of the appellant cannot be of any help to its case for the reasons firstly that the appeal(s) against the award Ext. RA are stated to be pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and secondly the findings so recorded could not be treated as resjudicata as neither the owner nor the insurer of the Swift Car No. HP03T4103 were party in proceedings before the learned MACT, Chandigarh.
22. The owner and insurer of the car have not assailed the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, whereby the learned Tribunal has found the accident to have been caused by rash and negligent driving of both the drivers.
23. At the time of hearing, nothing substantial has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 13 to assail the findings of the learned Tribunal on the quantum of compensation awarded on account of death of .
Deepali Kanwar. Even otherwise, from the material on record, I do not find any reason to take a view different than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. The deceased Deepali Kanwar was a student of Jawahar Lal Nehru University, Delhi having prospects of bright career. In these circumstances, her notional income has rightly been assessed. There is no error in application of multiplier.
Thus, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires no interference.
24. In view of the specific findings of composite negligence against drivers of both the vehicles as returned by the learned Tribunal; as also what has been held hereinabove, the appeals deserves to be partially allowed by holding that since the accident has taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Bus No. HP635729 and Car No. HP03T4103, the owner and driver of the bus, as also the owner of Car are liable to compensate the claimants in equal proportion and ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS 14 accordingly, the appellant and New India Assurance Company Ltd. i.e. insurer of the car shall be liable to .
satisfy the awards in equal proportion.
25. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. Record be sent back forthwith.
(Satyen Vaidya) 16 July, 2025 th Judge (kck) ::: Downloaded on - 17/07/2025 21:16:49 :::CIS