In a hearing that stretched through the post-lunch session on Friday, the Himachal Pradesh High Court revisited the compensation granted to a family that lost its breadwinner in a tragic road accident near Una. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, after going through stacks of records and listening patiently to both sides, decided to slightly revise the award granted earlier by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) Una. The courtroom atmosphere was calm but expectant, especially when the judge started questioning the calculations used by the Tribunal.
Delhi High Court Rejects 30-Year-Old Suit's Late Amendment Plea, Calls It Attempt to Delay Trial and
Background
The case arose from a 2015 accident in which the victim-aged above 40 and self-employed-lost his life. The MACT had awarded the family ₹41,95,000 along with 9% annual interest, holding the Dehradoon Roadways and one more respondent jointly liable. The appeal reached the High Court with a narrow challenge: the compensation was too high, the appellant argued, mainly because the deceased’s income and future prospects were inflated.
The claimants, represented by their counsel, countered that the Tribunal had actually missed awarding consortium benefits to the children and the mother-an emotional and financial acknowledgment routinely granted in such cases. One lawyer whispered to another, “This might actually go upward, not downward,” sensing the court’s direction.
DMRC's 5G Rollout Move Upheld: Delhi High Court Rejects Crest Digitel Appeal Against Nomination
Court’s Observations
Justice Bhardwaj first brushed aside the appellant’s argument on income. The witness who issued the salary certificate was not challenged in cross-examination. “If no question is put to the witness, how can you say his statement is unreliable now?” the judge asked at one point, drawing a brief silence from the appellant’s side.
However, the court agreed that the Tribunal exceeded the legally permissible percentage for future prospects. Citing the Supreme Court’s landmark Pranay Sethi ruling, the judge said, “The bench observed, ‘For a self-employed person aged between 40 and 50, only 25% addition is allowed, not 30%.’”
On interest rate, the court refused to interfere. Justice Bhardwaj noted that even the Supreme Court, in Sube Singh, had approved 9% interest in similar cases. “Unless you show me a judgment of a three-judge bench awarding less, I cannot reduce it,” he remarked, almost hinting that the argument lacked substance.
The most significant observation came when the court examined the Tribunal’s omission of consortium. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Magma General Insurance, the judge stressed that parental and filial consortium-essentially compensation for the emotional vacuum caused by the death-must be awarded even if the claimants did not separately appeal. “Order 41 Rule 33 gives the appellate court broad power to do complete justice,” the judge said, adding that courts must avoid technicalities when fairness is at stake.
Decision
After recalculating income, future prospects, and statutory amounts, the High Court slightly adjusted the compensation to ₹41,87,500, a minor downward revision, while adding consortium for all four claimants-₹50,000 each. The interest at 9% stays intact.
Supreme Court Questions Centre’s Tribunal Reforms Act After Repeated Violations of Judicial
The judge concluded, “The award is modified to this extent,” and disposed of the appeal. With that, the matter was settled, at least in law.
Case Title: Depot Manager of Dehradoon Roadways vs. Suman Devi & Others
Court: High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla
Case Type: First Appeal Order (Motor Vehicles Act) – FAO (MVA) No. 36 of 2016
Date of Judgment: 7 November 2025
