Safiya Malik

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj allowed an appeal by the parents of a deceased scooter rider, enhancing the compensation for his death in a road accident and directing the insurer to pay the revised amount with higher interest. The Court held that the deceased’s failure to hold a driving licence at the time of the accident did not, by itself, make him responsible for contributory negligence; his liability could extend only to statutory penalty under the Motor Vehicles Act, not to sharing blame for the collision. The Bench affirmed that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the truck driver and removed the earlier deduction towards contributory negligence.

The case arises from a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the parents of a deceased 16-year-old, seeking compensation for his death in a road accident on 16.04.2013 at Rakkar Colony near a showroom in District Una, Himachal Pradesh, involving a scooter and a tipper truck. The claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which assessed compensation on the basis of a notional monthly income and applied a deduction towards contributory negligence, noting that the deceased did not possess a driving licence at the time of the accident, and awarded interest at a specified rate.

Also Read: Seven-Day Notice By Advocate To Client Not Required When "No Instructions" Pursis Is Filed: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bombay High Court Article 227 Interference In Landlord–Tenant Eviction Case

In appeal, the appellants contended that the deceased was a 10+1 student with a promising academic and extracurricular record, relying on the mother’s affidavit and school documents to argue for a higher assessment of his income and future prospects, and for enhancement of interest. They further challenged the deduction made on account of contributory negligence solely because the deceased lacked a driving licence. The contesting respondent supported the Tribunal’s findings, arguing that the notional income and interest rate were appropriate in the absence of documentary proof of earnings and relied on Supreme Court precedents to defend the award.

The Court recorded that the Tribunal erred in assessing monthly income at ₹3,000. It “deserves to be accepted for the reason that since the deceased was a student of 10+1, he had a bright future.” The Court noted the affidavit evidence showing that the deceased was academically capable, participated in sports and cultural activities, and “was aiming to become an IAS Officer.” The Court stated that the insurer did not challenge this assertion in cross-examination, observing that “respondent No.3 has not put any specific suggestion with respect to the fact that the deceased was not aiming to become an IAS Officer.”

The Court found it appropriate to take the notional income at ₹150 per day, recording that “the notional income of deceased would be Rs.4,500/- per month.” Regarding future prospects, it cited the principles in Pranay Sethi and stated that “40% towards future prospects had to be added in the income of the deceased.”

On contributory negligence, the Court observed that the Tribunal’s deduction merely on the ground of absence of licence was erroneous. It stated: “the deceased could not have been held liable to contribute for accident simply for the reason that he had no driving license.” It further held that “his contribution towards the accident cannot be attributed to him.” The Court found that the Tribunal’s conclusion that the deceased was liable for contributory negligence was “wrong and illegal.”

On interest, the Court examined multiple precedents and recorded that “the interest deserves to be enhanced from 7.5% to 9% per annum on the compensation amount.” The Court referred to Sube Singh, Jagdish v. Mohan, and Nutan Rani, noting that three-Judge Bench decisions granted 9% interest.

Regarding consortium, the Court stated: “The Tribunal below has not awarded any amount on account of consortium.” Referring to Magma General Insurance, the Court observed that parents of deceased children are entitled to filial consortium. It further noted that “the appellants are held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- each on account of filial consortium,” and recorded that the enhancement was justified due to the 10% increase mandated every three years as per Pranay Sethi.

The Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to enhanced compensation based on recalculated dependency, consortium, and funeral expenses.

Also Read: Vehicle Ownership Not Evidence Of Drug-Trade Earnings; Inference Was Biased: Himachal Pradesh High Court Quashes Preventive Detention

The Court allowed the appeal and recorded that “the award passed by the Tribunal below is modified and a total sum of Rs.8,05,400/- is awarded in favour of the appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition. The apportionment of the compensation amount is concerned, it shall be 75% to appellant No.1 and remaining 25% to appellant No.2 as per the award.”

“The Insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within 90 days from the date of this judgment in the Registry of this Court.” All pending applications stood disposed of and that there would be no order as to costs.

Advocates Representing The Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Divya Raj Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Ms. Devyani Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

Case Title: Madhu Joshi and another v. Rajesh Kumar alias Sonu and others
Neutral Citation: 2025: HHC:38505
Case Number: FAO(MVA) No. 341 of 2015
Bench: Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj