FAO-1994-2019 (O&M) 124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Mahender Singh Pali Ram (Now Deceased) CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant NIDHI GUPTA, J. 1. Present Mahender Singh seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.01,09,591/ by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dat Petition No.111 dated 04.03.2016 filed under Section 166/140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of pleadings and or concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 01.09.2015 at 7.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving of a Mahindera Bolero Pick up bearing registr offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. Particulars of Insurance Company of the offending vehicle were not provided by the respondents. The above compensation has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- FAO Date of Decision 19.05.2026 Mahender Singh VERSUS Pali Ram (Now Deceased) through LRs and Another CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant -.- NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the injured Mahender Singh seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.01,09,591/ by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”) vide Award dated 22.11.2018 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.111 dated 04.03.2016 filed under Section 166/140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of pleadings and oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 01.09.2015 at 7.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving of a Mahindera Bolero Pick up bearing registration no.HR offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. Particulars of Insurance Company of the offending vehicle were not provided by the respondents. The above compensation has been awarded with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1994-2019 (O&M) Date of Decision 19.05.2026 ....Appellant through LRs and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Mukul Goyal, Advocate for the appellant (on V.C). appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant namely Mahender Singh seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.01,09,591/- awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred ed 22.11.2018 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.111 dated 04.03.2016 filed under Section 166/140 and 141 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of al and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 01.09.2015 at 7.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving of a ation no.HR-65-8159 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. Particulars of Insurance Company of the offending vehicle were not provided by the respondents. The above compensation has been awarded along claimant namely awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred ed 22.11.2018 passed in MACT Claim Petition No.111 dated 04.03.2016 filed under Section 166/140 and 141 of the Brief facts of the case are that the Tribunal upon appraisal of al and documentary evidence adduced by the parties had concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 01.09.2015 at 7.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving of a 8159 (hereinafter ‘the offending vehicle’) being driven by respondent No.1 and owned by respondent No.2. Particulars of Insurance Company of the offending vehicle were not along TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1994-2019 (O&M) 3. Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that learned Tribunal has awarded nothing to the appellant towards loss of future earnings. It is submitted that prior to th plumbing work however, in the accident, the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 15%. Accordingly, appellant was entitled to loss of future earnings. 4. Moreover, compensation on account of disability should Rs.1 lakh. Even amounts granted under the other Heads such as treatment, transportation, medical expenses, attendant charges and, special diet etc are on the lower side. Loss of income should have been awarded at the rate of Rs.1 lakh. Nothing has been awarded towards reduction and life expectancy. No amount has been awarded towards Attendant charges and future prospects. Interest should have been awarded @12% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensa 5. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant 6. A perusal of the record of the case shows that in the claim petition, appellant had pleaded that in the accident dated 01.09.2015 appellant had received “multiple series and grievance injuries on various parts of his body medical evidence on record in the form of MLR Ex.P1, appellant has suffered fracture of left high. It has also come on record that the appellant had remained admitted in hospital, from 0 treatment at PGI Chandigarh 7. To prove his case, appellant had examined Dr. Anup Mehta, PW2 who deposed that to assess the disability of the appellant, a Medical Board was 2019 (O&M) Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that learned Tribunal has awarded nothing to the appellant towards loss of future earnings. It is submitted that prior to th plumbing work however, in the accident, the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 15%. Accordingly, appellant was entitled to loss of future earnings. Moreover, compensation on account of disability should Rs.1 lakh. Even amounts granted under the other Heads such as treatment, transportation, medical expenses, attendant charges and, special diet etc are on the lower side. Loss of income should have been awarded at the rate of Rs.1 lakh. as been awarded towards reduction and life expectancy. No amount has been awarded towards Attendant charges and future prospects. Interest should have been awarded @12% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant be enhanced. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant A perusal of the record of the case shows that in the claim petition, appellant had pleaded that in the accident dated 01.09.2015 appellant had received multiple series and grievance injuries on various parts of his body dence on record in the form of MLR Ex.P1, appellant has suffered fracture of left high. It has also come on record that the appellant had remained admitted in hospital, from 02.09.2015 to 08.09.2015. Appellant had again received treatment at PGI Chandigarh from 24.10.2015 till 04.11.2015. To prove his case, appellant had examined Dr. Anup Mehta, PW2 who deposed that to assess the disability of the appellant, a Medical Board was -2- Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that learned Tribunal has awarded nothing to the appellant towards loss of future earnings. It is submitted that prior to the accident the appellant was doing plumbing work however, in the accident, the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 15%. Accordingly, appellant was entitled to loss of future earnings. Moreover, compensation on account of disability should have been Rs.1 lakh. Even amounts granted under the other Heads such as treatment, transportation, medical expenses, attendant charges and, special diet etc are on the lower side. Loss of income should have been awarded at the rate of Rs.1 lakh. as been awarded towards reduction and life expectancy. No amount has been awarded towards Attendant charges and future prospects. Interest should have been awarded @12% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be tion awarded to the appellant be enhanced. No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants. A perusal of the record of the case shows that in the claim petition, appellant had pleaded that in the accident dated 01.09.2015 appellant had received multiple series and grievance injuries on various parts of his body.” As per the dence on record in the form of MLR Ex.P1, appellant has suffered fracture of left high. It has also come on record that the appellant had remained .09.2015 to 08.09.2015. Appellant had again received from 24.10.2015 till 04.11.2015. To prove his case, appellant had examined Dr. Anup Mehta, PW2 who deposed that to assess the disability of the appellant, a Medical Board was Ld. counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that learned Tribunal has awarded nothing to the appellant towards loss e accident the appellant was doing plumbing work however, in the accident, the appellant has suffered a permanent disability of 15%. Accordingly, appellant was entitled to loss of future earnings. have been Rs.1 lakh. Even amounts granted under the other Heads such as treatment, transportation, medical expenses, attendant charges and, special diet etc are on the lower side. Loss of income should have been awarded at the rate of Rs.1 lakh. as been awarded towards reduction and life expectancy. No amount has been awarded towards Attendant charges and future prospects. Interest should have been awarded @12% per annum. It is accordingly prayed that the present appeal be No other argument is raised on behalf of ld. counsel for the appellant. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in detail. I find no merit in A perusal of the record of the case shows that in the claim petition, appellant had pleaded that in the accident dated 01.09.2015 appellant had received .” As per the dence on record in the form of MLR Ex.P1, appellant has suffered fracture of left high. It has also come on record that the appellant had remained .09.2015 to 08.09.2015. Appellant had again received To prove his case, appellant had examined Dr. Anup Mehta, PW2 who deposed that to assess the disability of the appellant, a Medical Board was TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1994-2019 (O&M) constituted consisting of himself, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Medical Superintendent Dr. S.K.Nain, Civil Surgeon, which had examined the appellant and had assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 15% as permanent disability, as recorded in Disability Certificate Ex. P 8. Appellant had also examined, Dr. Aseem Goe that appellant had remained hospitalized at GMCH at 32 Chandigarh, from 02.09.2015 till 08.09.2015 as evident from the discharge and follow up card Ex. 66. It is to be noted that PW injury, such as the one suffered by the appellant, could be recovered within 8 to 9 months provided no complication occurs. Appellant has failed to show any complications. From the MLR Ex.P1 as well as the Disability Certificate Ex.P2, it is clear that the ap appellant is qua particular limb and not qua the whole body. Moreover, in view of deposition of PW4 Dr.Aseem Goel that appellant may recover from the said disability within 8 to 9 months, Court, that he has suffered any complication. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to any amount towards loss of income. In this circumstance, learned Tribunal had correctly awarded an amount of (Rs.2,000/- per per cent of disability). Relevant observation of the learned Tribunal in this regard is reproduced as under: “28. be a unskilled labourer. However assessed qua particular limb (fracture contractor left thigh with 10 decree long left knee movement) and if he is treated to be a unskilled labourer still, due to this permanent disability his earning capacity will not decre that disability has been assessed qua particular limb and not qua whole body and therefore, I am of the considered view that if claimant 2019 (O&M) constituted consisting of himself, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Medical Superintendent Dr. S.K.Nain, Civil Surgeon, which had examined the appellant and had assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 15% as permanent disability, as recorded in Disability Certificate Ex. P-2. Appellant had also examined, Dr. Aseem Goe that appellant had remained hospitalized at GMCH at 32 Chandigarh, from .09.2015 till 08.09.2015 as evident from the discharge and follow up card Ex. 66. It is to be noted that PW-4 in his cross-examination had admitted that the ury, such as the one suffered by the appellant, could be recovered within 8 to 9 months provided no complication occurs. Appellant has failed to show any complications. From the MLR Ex.P1 as well as the Disability Certificate Ex.P2, it is clear that the appellant has suffered fracture of left thigh. Thus, disability of the appellant is qua particular limb and not qua the whole body. Moreover, in view of deposition of PW4 Dr.Aseem Goel that appellant may recover from the said disability within 8 to 9 months, and as Appellant has not shown anything to this Court, that he has suffered any complication. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to any amount towards loss of income. In this circumstance, learned Tribunal had correctly awarded an amount of ₹30,000/- tow per per cent of disability). Relevant observation of the learned Tribunal in this regard is reproduced as under:- 28. In the present case, claimant Mahender Singh has been held to be a unskilled labourer. However assessed qua particular limb (fracture contractor left thigh with 10 decree long left knee movement) and if he is treated to be a unskilled labourer still, due to this permanent disability his earning capacity will not decrease drastically. Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that disability has been assessed qua particular limb and not qua whole body and therefore, I am of the considered view that if claimant -3- constituted consisting of himself, Dr. Mukesh Kumar Medical Superintendent, and Dr. S.K.Nain, Civil Surgeon, which had examined the appellant and had assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 15% as permanent disability, as Appellant had also examined, Dr. Aseem Goel PW4 who had proved that appellant had remained hospitalized at GMCH at 32 Chandigarh, from .09.2015 till 08.09.2015 as evident from the discharge and follow up card Ex. examination had admitted that the ury, such as the one suffered by the appellant, could be recovered within 8 to 9 months provided no complication occurs. Appellant has failed to show any complications. From the MLR Ex.P1 as well as the Disability Certificate Ex.P2, it pellant has suffered fracture of left thigh. Thus, disability of the appellant is qua particular limb and not qua the whole body. Moreover, in view of deposition of PW4 Dr.Aseem Goel that appellant may recover from the said and as Appellant has not shown anything to this Court, that he has suffered any complication. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to any amount towards loss of income. In this circumstance, learned Tribunal had towards 15%. permanent disability per per cent of disability). Relevant observation of the learned Tribunal In the present case, claimant Mahender Singh has been held to be a unskilled labourer. However, permanent disability has been assessed qua particular limb (fracture contractor left thigh with 10 decree long left knee movement) and if he is treated to be a unskilled labourer still, due to this permanent disability his earning capacity ase drastically. Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that disability has been assessed qua particular limb and not qua whole body and therefore, I am of the considered view that if claimant , and Dr. S.K.Nain, Civil Surgeon, which had examined the appellant and had assessed the disability of the appellant to the extent of 15% as permanent disability, as l PW4 who had proved that appellant had remained hospitalized at GMCH at 32 Chandigarh, from .09.2015 till 08.09.2015 as evident from the discharge and follow up card Ex.P- examination had admitted that the ury, such as the one suffered by the appellant, could be recovered within 8 to 9 months provided no complication occurs. Appellant has failed to show any complications. From the MLR Ex.P1 as well as the Disability Certificate Ex.P2, it pellant has suffered fracture of left thigh. Thus, disability of the appellant is qua particular limb and not qua the whole body. Moreover, in view of deposition of PW4 Dr.Aseem Goel that appellant may recover from the said and as Appellant has not shown anything to this Court, that he has suffered any complication. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to any amount towards loss of income. In this circumstance, learned Tribunal had ards 15%. permanent disability per per cent of disability). Relevant observation of the learned Tribunal In the present case, claimant Mahender Singh has been held to , permanent disability has been assessed qua particular limb (fracture contractor left thigh with 10 decree long left knee movement) and if he is treated to be a unskilled labourer still, due to this permanent disability his earning capacity ase drastically. Moreover, it is relevant to mention here that disability has been assessed qua particular limb and not qua whole body and therefore, I am of the considered view that if claimant TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1994-2019 (O&M) is awarded a sum of 30,000/ which is 15% (total). Reference in this regard, can be made to the case of Law Reporter 646 (P&H) and he was awarded 20,000/ made to the case of Punjab Law Reporter 431 (P&H) assessed to be 4 permanent nature of functional disability.” 9. I am in complete agreement with above observations of the Tribunal. Appellant had also examined PW5 Dr. Ronak Shinde, Senior Resident Department of Plastic Surgery, PGI Chandigarh, who had deposed that appellant had undergone treatment in his department and had proved discharge and follow card Ex.P-57. PW5 has admitted that at time of discharge condition of the appellant was stable. 10. Appellant had pro Ex.P50 and Ex.P63 for a total sum of learned Tribunal, despite the fact that appellant had not proved the said medical bills by examining any chemist or dispenser or 11. Furthermore, it has been contented on behalf of the appellant that at the time of the accident, he was a plumber and was earning and due to the accident, he is unable to do his previous job. However, the record reveals that appellant did not produce any evidence to prove his above avocation or income. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, learned Tribunal had assessed income of the appellant as an unskilled labourer as per month on the basis of year 2015. I find no error in the same. 2019 (O&M) is awarded a sum of 30,000/- qua the disability suffered by p which is 15% (total). Reference in this regard, can be made to the case of Parkasho Devi Vs. Dinesh Saini and others 2016(4) Punjab Law Reporter 646 (P&H) wherein petitioner suffered 10% disability and he was awarded 20,000/- towards disability. Reliance can also be made to the case of Ramesh Vs. Bansi Lal and others 2015(1) Punjab Law Reporter 431 (P&H) assessed to be 40% and he was awarded 70,000/ permanent nature of functional disability.” I am in complete agreement with above observations of the Tribunal. Appellant had also examined PW5 Dr. Ronak Shinde, Senior Resident Department Surgery, PGI Chandigarh, who had deposed that appellant had undergone treatment in his department and had proved discharge and follow 57. PW5 has admitted that at time of discharge condition of the appellant was stable. Appellant had produced medical bills Ex.P3 to Ex. P14, Ex.P16 to Ex.P50 and Ex.P63 for a total sum of ₹46,991/- learned Tribunal, despite the fact that appellant had not proved the said medical bills by examining any chemist or dispenser or Doctor. Furthermore, it has been contented on behalf of the appellant that at the time of the accident, he was a plumber and was earning and due to the accident, he is unable to do his previous job. However, the record at appellant did not produce any evidence to prove his above avocation or income. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, learned Tribunal had assessed income of the appellant as an unskilled labourer as per month on the basis of the relevant minimum wage notification prevalent in the year 2015. I find no error in the same. -4- qua the disability suffered by petitioners which is 15% (total). Reference in this regard, can be made to the Parkasho Devi Vs. Dinesh Saini and others 2016(4) Punjab wherein petitioner suffered 10% disability towards disability. Reliance can also be Ramesh Vs. Bansi Lal and others 2015(1) wherein disability of petitioner was 0% and he was awarded 70,000/- as a result from a permanent nature of functional disability.” I am in complete agreement with above observations of the Tribunal. Appellant had also examined PW5 Dr. Ronak Shinde, Senior Resident Department Surgery, PGI Chandigarh, who had deposed that appellant had undergone treatment in his department and had proved discharge and follow 57. PW5 has admitted that at time of discharge condition of the duced medical bills Ex.P3 to Ex. P14, Ex.P16 to - which was duly reimbursed by the learned Tribunal, despite the fact that appellant had not proved the said medical Doctor. Furthermore, it has been contented on behalf of the appellant that at the time of the accident, he was a plumber and was earning ₹25,000/- per month and due to the accident, he is unable to do his previous job. However, the record at appellant did not produce any evidence to prove his above-said alleged avocation or income. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, learned Tribunal had assessed income of the appellant as an unskilled labourer as ₹7600/ the relevant minimum wage notification prevalent in the etitioners which is 15% (total). Reference in this regard, can be made to the Parkasho Devi Vs. Dinesh Saini and others 2016(4) Punjab wherein petitioner suffered 10% disability towards disability. Reliance can also be Ramesh Vs. Bansi Lal and others 2015(1) wherein disability of petitioner was as a result from a I am in complete agreement with above observations of the Tribunal. Appellant had also examined PW5 Dr. Ronak Shinde, Senior Resident Department Surgery, PGI Chandigarh, who had deposed that appellant had undergone treatment in his department and had proved discharge and follow-up 57. PW5 has admitted that at time of discharge condition of the duced medical bills Ex.P3 to Ex. P14, Ex.P16 to which was duly reimbursed by the learned Tribunal, despite the fact that appellant had not proved the said medical Furthermore, it has been contented on behalf of the appellant that at per month and due to the accident, he is unable to do his previous job. However, the record said alleged avocation or income. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence, learned ₹7600/- the relevant minimum wage notification prevalent in the TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1994-2019 (O&M) 12. Furthermore, contention of the appellant that nothing has been awarded to him towards loss of income, is not tenable as ld. Tribunal has duly awarded an amount of that he remained hospitalised from 02.09.2015 to 08.09.2015 and again from 24.10.2015 to 04.11.2015. Although the appellant had remained hospitalised for only 15 days, yet the Tribunal h which the appellant may have recuperated. 13. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, ld. Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner: Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 14. Keeping in view the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground is made out for enhancement of compensation. The present Appeal accordingly stands 15. Pending May 19, 2026 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 2019 (O&M) Furthermore, contention of the appellant that nothing has been awarded to him towards loss of income, is not tenable as ld. Tribunal has duly mount of ₹7600/- to the appellant for loss of earning for the 15 days that he remained hospitalised from 02.09.2015 to 08.09.2015 and again from 24.10.2015 to 04.11.2015. Although the appellant had remained hospitalised for only 15 days, yet the Tribunal has awarded loss of income for 15 more days, for which the appellant may have recuperated. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, ld. Tribunal awarded compensation in the following manner: - Sr. No. Heads Loss of earning during recuperation Amount towards pain and sufferings Amount towards Special diet Amount towards transportation charges Amount towards medical bills Amount towards disability Total Keeping in view the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground is made out for enhancement of compensation. The present Appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -5- Furthermore, contention of the appellant that nothing has been awarded to him towards loss of income, is not tenable as ld. Tribunal has duly to the appellant for loss of earning for the 15 days that he remained hospitalised from 02.09.2015 to 08.09.2015 and again from 24.10.2015 to 04.11.2015. Although the appellant had remained hospitalised for as awarded loss of income for 15 more days, for Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, ld. Tribunal awarded Calculation (in Rs.) Loss of earning during ₹7,600/- Amount towards pain and ₹10,000/- Amount towards Special diet ₹5,000/- Amount towards transportation ₹10,000/- Amount towards medical bills ₹46,991/- ₹30,000/- ₹1,09,591/- Keeping in view the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground is made out for enhancement of compensation. The present application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (NIDHI GUPTA) JUDGE Furthermore, contention of the appellant that nothing has been awarded to him towards loss of income, is not tenable as ld. Tribunal has duly to the appellant for loss of earning for the 15 days that he remained hospitalised from 02.09.2015 to 08.09.2015 and again from 24.10.2015 to 04.11.2015. Although the appellant had remained hospitalised for as awarded loss of income for 15 more days, for Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, ld. Tribunal awarded Keeping in view the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground is made out for enhancement of compensation. The present TRIPTI SAINI 2026.05.20 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document