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.
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
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
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
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
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
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.
9
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,
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:
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
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
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
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)
