A High Court judgment reaffirms that an affidavit by the deceased relinquishing future compensation does not extinguish the statutory right of dependents to claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act; awards may be enhanced at the appellate stage even without a cross-appeal. The decision follows established Supreme Court precedent and will serve as binding authority within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | FAO/503/2015 of COMMANDANT 70 RCC ( GREEF) Vs KIRAN BALA ORS |
| CNR | HPHC010261872015 |
| Date of Registration | 28-12-2015 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK SINGH THAKUR |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Himachal Pradesh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms MACT findings with modification/enhancement |
| Type of Law | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Compensation Law) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that an affidavit or undertaking by a deceased person disclaiming compensation cannot bar his dependents’ statutory right to claim compensation under Section 166 MV Act. Such undertaking, even if proved, is unsustainable regarding the rights of dependents. Further, on the quantum, the appellate court is empowered to enhance compensation even if the claimants have not filed a separate cross-appeal, relying on relevant Supreme Court decisions. Deduction for personal expenses should be 1/4 (not 1/3) for four dependents, and future prospects must be added following Supreme Court guidance. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory right of dependents under the MV Act; interpreting applicability of affidavits vis-à-vis statutory rights; powers of appellate courts under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC; Supreme Court’s insistence on ‘just compensation’. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Deceased Halku Ram, aged 36, serving as Chowkidar, died due to injuries sustained in a motor accident on 2.2.2007. An FIR was filed against the driver. Deceased had allegedly signed an affidavit disavowing compensation claims, relied upon by the respondents. MACT allowed a compensation petition, holding the affidavit unsustainable and awarding compensation based on service income (not additional agricultural income). Respondents argued on affidavit’s validity and quantum. High Court found the affidavit unproven and, even if proven, unable to bind dependents’ statutory rights. High Court enhanced the compensation, applying proper deductions for personal expenses, adding future prospects, and clarified apportionment and interest rate. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; potential guidance for the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that an affidavit by a deceased cannot deprive his dependents of their independent statutory right to compensation under the MV Act.
- The Court may enhance compensation in appeal, even absent a cross-appeal by the claimants, following Supreme Court precedent.
- Deduction for personal expenses should be tailored to the number of dependents: 1/4th for four dependents, incorporating future prospects as per Pranay Sethi.
- Importance of strict proof of affidavits/undertakings — mere production of a photocopy does not amount to proof in law.
- Interest rate on enhanced compensation may be modified by appellate courts to ensure fairness.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first examined whether the affidavit purportedly signed by the deceased, disclaiming compensation claims by him or his family, was proved. It found that mere production of a photocopy was insufficient—no original or corroborating evidence was presented, nor were relevant witnesses examined.
- Even if the affidavit had been lawfully proven, such an undertaking can only bind the deceased’s own interests, not those of statutory dependents, as there is no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act restricting dependents’ right to claim.
- On the assessment of compensation, the Court referred to Supreme Court decisions (Pranay Sethi, Megma General Insurance, Surekha v. Santosh) to clarify the manner of calculating just compensation, especially concerning future prospects, deduction for personal expenses, and multiplier—decreasing deduction from 1/3rd to 1/4th for four dependents.
- The Court cited Supreme Court authority on the appellate power to grant enhanced compensation even if the claimants have not filed a separate cross-appeal, treating the claim for ‘just compensation’ as overriding technical objections.
- Relying on Order 41 Rule 33 CPC and Rule 233(2) of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, the Court found it could enhance compensation where warranted.
- Apportionment among dependents and revision of interest from 9% to 7.5% per annum followed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellants – Union of India & Another):
- Submitted that the affidavit/undertaking given by the deceased, voluntarily disclaiming future compensation, precluded all claims by his dependents.
- Asserted compensation awarded by MACT was excessive and arbitrary, especially regarding additions for loss of consortium and care/guidance.
- Contended that future prospects should not be added, and deduction for personal expenses should be higher.
Respondent (Claimants):
- Claimed that the monthly income included both service and agricultural earnings.
- Asserted entitlement to full compensation in accordance with law.
- Responded to cross-examination, and did not dispute the salary income.
Factual Background
Halku Ram, aged 36, working as a Chowkidar in the IPH Department, died following a road accident on 2 February 2007, when taking a lift in a tanker vehicle. FIR No. 7/2007 was filed against the vehicle’s driver under relevant IPC sections. Following his death, his widow, mother, and minor children filed a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents relied on an affidavit/undertaking purportedly signed by the deceased, disavowing compensation. The MACT awarded compensation to the dependents, which was appealed by the respondents.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 166, MV Act, 1988: Governs applications for compensation by the injured person or, in case of death, by legal representatives/dependents. No bar on dependents’ claims even if deceased made contrary statements.
- Order 41 Rules 22 & 33 CPC / Rule 233(2) of H.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1999: Applied to empower appellate court to make orders in favour of any party, even in the absence of cross-appeal.
- The Court interpreted deduction for personal expenses and calculation of future prospects in accordance with the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi and Megma General Insurance.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in this single-judge decision.
Procedural Innovations
- Court clarified and exercised the power to enhance compensation on appeal, even without cross-appeal by claimants, per Supreme Court guidance.
- Strict adherence to evidentiary requirements for affidavits/undertakings in compensation proceedings was reiterated.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court followed existing Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding dependents’ rights, calculation of compensation, and appellate powers.