Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bhim Singh (Deceased) Through His Lrs on 7 August, 2025
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
FAO No.250 of 2020 a/w FAO
No.315 of 2019
Reserved on: 01.08.2025
Decided on: 7th August, 2025
.
FAO No.250 of 2020
National Insurance Co. Ltd. .......Appellant
versus
Bhim Singh (deceased) through his LRs ...Respondents
Bhim Singh (deceased) through his LRs
r to
FAO No.315 of 2019
.......Appellants
versus
Amrik Singh and another ...Respondents
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes.
For the appellant: Mr.Ashwani Sharma, Senior
Advocate with Mr.Ishan
Sharma and Ms.Nisha Nalot,
Advocates for the appellant in
FAO No.250 of 2020 and for
the respondent in FAO No.315
of 2019.
For the respondents: Mr.B.M. Chauhan, Senior
Advocate with Ms.Kamakshi
Tarlokta, Advocate for the
respondent in FAO No.250 of
2020 and for the appellant in
FAO No.315 of 2019.
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
Satyen Vaidya, Judge
Both these appeals were heard and are being
decided by a common judgment as identical questions of facts
.
and law are involved.
2. FAO No.250 of 2020 has been filed by the insurer,
challenging the award dated 31.07.2017 passed by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla (for short the
'Tribunal') in MAC Petition No.24-S/2 of 2016, whereby
compensation to the tune of Rs.38,85,395/- has been
awarded in favour of the claimants along-with interest @ 7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the
realization by directing the insurer/appellant to discharge the
liability.
3. FAO No.315 of 2019 has been filed by the
claimants for enhancement alleging inadequacy of
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
4. During pendency of these appeals, claimant Bhim
Singh has died and he has been substituted by his legal
representatives i.e. wife, sons and daughters.
5. The claim petition was filed by claimant Bhim
Singh under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act (for short
the 'Act') for compensation on account of injuries and
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
permanent disablement suffered by him in a motor vehicle
accident involving Alto Car No.PB-09Z-3014.
6. It was alleged that on 16.02.2016, at about 9.00
.
AM the claimant was travelling by riding motorcycle No. PB-
08-BG-9763. When he reached near G.T. Road opposite
Ranvir Classic Hotel, Jalandhar, an Alto Car No. PB-09Z-
3014 driven by Amrik Singh (respondent No.1 in FAO No.315
of 2019) came from other direction and hit the motorcycle of
the claimant. Consequently, the claimant received grievous
injuries. FIR in respect of the incident was registered vide FIR
No.36 dated 16.02.2016 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and
427 IPC at Police Station, Division No.8 Jalandhar (Punjab)
against Amrik Singh.
7. The cause of accident was attributed to the rash
and negligent driving of Amrik Singh. The offending car was
insured with the National Insurance Company Limited i.e.
appellant in FAO No.250 of 2020.
8. The claimant had alleged that he was initially
admitted in Sacred Hospital, Maqsuda Hospital from where
he was shifted to Neurological Institute of Medical Sciences
Pvt. Ltd. (NIMS), Jalandhar for specialized treatment of spinal
injury. The claimant remained admitted in NIMS Hospital
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
from 16.02.2016 to 04.03.2016. He was treated by
Orthopedic Surgeons, Neuro-physician and the claimant also
underwent surgery. It was claimed that the claimant had
.
been permanently disabled to the extent of 100% as he was
unable to move. Treatment of the claimant was stated to be
continuing at the time of filing of the petition.
9. Amrik Singh was proceeded against ex-parte as he
did not choose to contest the petition despite having been
served with the notice to appear.
10. Only the insurer contested the petition. In its
reply, objections were raised as to maintainability of the
petition, estoppels, breach of terms and conditions of the
policy, mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. The claimant
was alleged to be rash and negligent and according to the
insurer that was the cause of accident.
11. Learned Tribunal framed the following issues:-
1. Whether Sh. Bhim Singh, sustained injuries in a motor
accident on 16.02.2016, involving vehicle No. PB-09Z-
3014, being driven by respondent No.1, in rash and
negligent manner? OPP.
2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, for what amount
of compensation, the claimant is entitled and from
whom? OPP.
3. Whether the present petition is notmaintainable?
OPR.
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
4. Whether the claimant is estopped from claiming
compensation due to his own wrongful acts, deeds and
conduct? OPR-2.
5. Whether the vehicle in question was plied in violation of
.
the terms and conditions of the insurance policy?
OPR-2.
6. Whether the driver of the vehicle was not having valid
and effective driving licence at the time of accident, if
so, its effect? OPR-2.
7. Whether the claim petition is bad for non-jonder/mis-
joinder of necessary parties OPR
8. Relief.
12. Issues No.1 and 2 were decided in affirmative,
whereas, all other issues were decided in negative. Learned
Tribunal awarded the compensation, as noticed above, under
the following heads:-
Sr.No. Head Amount
1. Pain and sufferings 34,000/-
2. Loss of enjoyment of life 5,00,000/-
3. Shortened expectation of life 2,00,000/-
and future treatment
4. Loss of earning and earning 21,60,000(12,000X12X15)
capacity
5. Medical expenses 4,61,395/-
6. Travelling expenses 30,000/-
7. Special diet and attendant 5,00,000/-
charges
Total Rs.38,85,395/-
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
have also gone through the records carefully.
14. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate
.
representing the insurer would assail the impugned award on
quantum. He contended that income of claimant @ 12,000/-
per month, as considered by the learned Tribunal had no
legal basis. He submitted that in absence of any documented
income of claimant, learned Tribunal should have adverted to
the minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act to
arrive at a notional income. Mr. Sharma, further pointed out
that the learned Tribunal has wrongly considered the age of
the claimant as 40 years, whereas, his age on the date of
accident was 44 years, 11 months and 12 days. In order to
substantiate his argument, learned Senior Advocate made
reference to the document Ext.PW-1/B, according to which,
the date of birth of the claimant was 04.03.1971. He, thus,
contended that the learned Tribunal had wrongly applied the
multiplier of 15, whereas, it should have been 14, as per
mandate in Sarla Verma & others versus Delhi Transport
Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121.
15. Mr. Ashwani Sharma, learned Senior Advocate
raised another argument that the claimant had died within
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
almost five years of the date of accident and his death is not
related to the injuries suffered in the accident and thus, the
multiplier, if any, should be of five only, instead of 14.
.
16. On the other hand, Mr. Brij Mohan Chauhan,
learned Senior Advocate representing the claimant would
contend that the learned Tribunal had failed to grant any
enhancement on the monthly income of the claimant on
account of loss of future prospects. He submitted that the
occupation of the claimant as the 'Die Fitter' was proved by
the statement of the claimant himself as the claimant was not
cross-examined on this vital aspect. He further submitted
that the death of claimant was directly related to the injuries
suffered by him in the accident.
17. As per claimant, he was employed as Die Fitter
with S.M. Forgings, Tools and Hardware Industries,
Jalandhar at the time of accident. Claimant had further
claimed that his salary was Rs.20,000/- per month. In
addition, an earning of Rs.2,50,000/- per annum was stated
to be available to the claimant from the agricultural land and
apple orchard.
18. The claimant while leading the evidence examined
himself as PW-1. He submitted that his examination-in-chief
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
by way of affidavit reiterating the contents of the petition.
Though, he was cross-examined on behalf of the insurer, but
his testimony to the effect that he was working as 'Die Fitter'
.
with S.M. Forgings, Tools and Hardware Industries,
Jalandhar, was not challenged. Thus, it stood proved that
the claimant at the time of accident was working as 'Die Fitter'
with the aforesaid industry. A suggestion was put to claimant
in cross-examination that he was not earning Rs.20,000/- per
month from his job or Rs.2,50,000/- per annum from
orchard, to which the claimant had replied in negative.
19. The claimant did not prove the salary earned from
his job either by proving his salary certificate or from the
records of S.M. Forgings, Tools and Hardware Industries. In
such circumstances, advertence to the minimum wages fixed
under the Minimum Wages Act, would have been proper.
20. At the time of hearing, both the sides have placed
on record, the rates of minimum wages fixed during the
relevant period. The date of accident was 16.02.2016.
Whereas, learned counsel for the insurer has placed reliance
on the Notification issued by the State Government of
Himachal Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act, learned
counsel for the claimant has placed reliance on the
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
Notification issued by the Labour Commissioner, Punjab.
Since, the claimant was employed in Punjab, it would be
proper to advert to the wages fixed in Punjab during the
.
relevant period. As on 01.09.2016, the wages of highly skilled
worker were Rs.10,167/- per month and of the skilled worker
were Rs.9135.56/- per month. Even if the claimant was
considered to be a skilled worker, his monthly income would
be Rs.9135/-. It is more than settled that while assessing
income of a victim of motor vehicle accident for the purposes
of compensation, some amount on guesswork is permissible
where the income is not documented. It cannot be ignored
that the minimum wages are fixed for specified hours,
whereas, a workman in private sector normally works for
extra hours to earn more. In this view of the matter,
considering the claimant to be a skilled worker, his monthly
income including overtime wages can conveniently be
assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
21. Admittedly, learned Tribunal has not considered
the grant of any incremental hike on account of loss of future
prospects. As per National Insurance Company Limited
vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the hike
on this count would be 25%. Thus, the monthly income of the
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
claimant would be Rs.12,500/-. Ext.PW-1/B is the
matriculation certificate of the claimant, in which, his date of
birth has been recorded as 04.03.1971. Thus, on the date of
.
accident i.e. 16.02.2016, the age of claimant was more than
44 years. As per Sarla Verma's case (Supra), the multiplier
applicable in the case of claimant would be 14, instead of 15
as applied by the learned Tribunal.
22. In view of what has been held above, the total loss
of future income of the claimant would be Rs.12500X12X
14=Rs.21,00,000/-, instead of Rs.21,60,000/-, as assessed
by the learned Tribunal.
23. As regards the contention of insurer that on
account of death of claimant, multiplier should be of five only,
learned Senior Counsel for the claimant has rebutted the
same by placing reliance on the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Oriental Insurance
Company Limited vs. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon
(2021) SCC online 691. In the said judgment, it has been
held that the claim of the personal injuries might not survive
after the death of insured unrelated to the accident of
injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claim for
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
the loss of estate, would be available and could be pursued by
the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
24. Thus, the claimant had become entitled to
.
compensation on the date of accident, though its adjudication
had taken sometime. Even on the date of adjudication by the
learned Tribunal, claimant was alive. Thus, the compensation
awarded in favour of claimant was part of his estate, which
came to be inherited by his legal heirs, who were substituted
as respondents No.1(a) to 1(d) in FAO No. 250 of 2020 and
appellants in FAO No.315 of 2019. Undoubtedly, in the light
of judgment in Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon' case (supra),
the legal representatives of deceased claimant would be
entitled to the compensation as estate of deceased. In this
view of the matter, the contention raised on behalf of the
insurer is rejected.
25. Since, re-calculation is required to be made under
the head 'loss of future income, the compensation payable to
the legal representatives of claimant shall be as under:-
Sr.No. Head Amount
1. Pain and sufferings 34,000/-
2. Loss of enjoyment of life 5,00,000/-
3. Shortened expectation of life 2,00,000/-
and future treatment
( 2025:HHC:26568 )
4. Loss of earning and earning 21,00,000(12500X12X14)
capacity
5. Medical expenses 4,61,395/-
6. Travelling expenses 30,000/-
.
7. Special diet and attendant 5,00,000/-
charges
Total Rs.38,25,395/-
26. In light of the above discussion appeal of the
Insurer i.e. FAO No.250 of 2020 is partly allowed and the
appeal of the claimant is dismissed. The impugned award
dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Shimla in MAC Petition No.24-S/2 of 2016
is modified to the extent as held above.
27. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of, so
also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
28. Record be sent back forthwith.
August 07, 2025 ( Satyen Vaidya )
(naveen) Judge
