-1- 234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2290-2000 Date of Decision: 16.07.2026 RAJINDER KUMAR ....Appellant Versus SURINDER KUMAR & ANR ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kesar Arora, Advocate for Ms. Ekta Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. R. C. Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Ram Avtar, Advocate for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) CM-13783-CII-2000 For the reasons stated in the application, same is allowed and the delay of 532 days in filing the present appeal, is hereby condoned. Main case Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant who had suffered injuries in accident dated 13.03.1993 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving car make Tata Sierra bearing registration No.DL-IU-0186 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being aggrieved by the award of insufficient RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2290-2000 -2- compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 04.01.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellant- claimant is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross- objection has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 3. Learned counsel for injured appellant/claimant had sought enhancement in compensation on the following grounds that : • Learned Tribunal had erred in not granting compensation on the basis of functional disability (as permanent disability is 25%) as per income of injured after taking in account future prospects & multiplier (considering age of injured to be 50 years). Award of compensation amounting to Rs.75,000/- is insufficient and not in accordance with entitlement of injured appellant/claimant; • Compensation for loss of future prospects and future amenities, loss of income during treatment and for future medical expenses has not been granted to which appellant-claimant is entitled to; • Enhancement of compensation for medical expenses and other expenses, and pain and sufferings being insufficient in view of nature of injuries, nature of treatment and period of hospitalisation, was sought. 4. Appellant/claimant had asserted that he was working with Pfizer and was drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- which was duly proved by examining Sh. B. S. Chauhan, official from employer of injured RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2290-2000 -3- appellant/claimant as PW-1 who had duly proved salary statement Ex.P-1 as well as salary certificate Ex.P-2. However, learned Tribunal has not taken note of the income of injured appellant/claimant while determining loss of income or earning capacity. 5. Appellant/claimant by producing medicine bills Ex.P-3 to Ex.P- 34 had succeeded in proving that in the accident dated 10.03.1996, appellant/claimant had suffered grievous injuries including fractures. He had placed on record disability certificate Ex.P-36 dated 12.12.1997 which showed disability qua upper limb to the extent of 15% and as regards to whole body to the extent of 7%. Injured appellant/claimant had also placed reliance upon disability certificate Ex.P-35 dated 24.07.1998 to the extent of 25% as regards to central nervous system. 6. Admittedly, no one was examined to prove disability certificate Ex.P-35. Persual of OPD card Ex.P/A in fact goes to show that no injury regarding any nervous system was recorded therein. In fact, OPD card goes to show that injured appellant/claimant had suffered multiple injuries and his right calivicle bone was treated by Orthopedic Department. There is no evidence that after the accident till 24.07.1998 when the alleged disability certificate Ex.P-35 was issued, appellant/claimant was being treated for his nervous system on account of accidental injuries suffered in accident dated 10.03.1996. It is quite strange that at the time of issuance of disability certificate Ex.P-36 qua upper limb which was with regards to the injuries suffered by appellant/claimant in accident, no notice of any damage to central nervous system was taken. 7. Therefore, in the present case, the disability certificate Ex.P35 cannot be taken into consideration. It is neither proved nor disability therein RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2290-2000 -4- is established qua accidental injuries. The overall disability qua whole body was determined by Doctor as 7%. Accordingly, functional disability is taken as 7%. The loss of earning capacity is determinable as per functional disability. Injured appellant/claimant had claimed that he was earning Rs.10,000/- while working with Pfizer and Rs.5,000/- as overtime. In order to prove his monthly income he had duly examined PW-1 who had duly placed statement of salary as Ex.P-1 as well as salary certificate Ex.P-2. 8. Perusal of salary certificate Ex.P-2 at the time of accident shows the drawn salary of appellant-claimant to be Rs.10,227/- per month and was paying income tax of Rs.1,216/- and therefore, after deducting income tax, his monthly income to be taken is Rs.9,011/- as mentioned in salary certificate Ex.P-2. There is no evidence as regards to overtime. Perusal of salary statement in fact goes to show that at no point of time any amount was paid towards overtime. Perusal of OPD slip Ex.P/A shows that appellant/claimant was aged 50 years old at the time of accident. Accordingly, age of injured appellant/claimant is taken as 50 years. In view of the fact that injured appellant/claimant was 50 years, future prospects to the extent of 30% and multiplier of ‘13’ would be applicable. 10. In the present case, compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded towards medical expenses, transportation and special diet is also enhanced and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation, special diet as well as expenses on attendant charges is awarded. Since, injured appellant/claimant had suffered fracture of calivicle bone, therefore, he must have undergone extreme pain and sufferings and accordingly, compensation of Rs.40,000/- is granted under the head pain and sufferings. In view of 7% permanent disability qua whole body, injured appellant/claimant would be RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2290-2000 -5- deprived of future amenities as well as future prospects of life and accordingly, amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the loss suffered on this account is accordingly awarded. Since, injured appellant/claimant had suffered fracture, therefore, it is clearly made out that injured appellant/claimant must have remained out of job for at least three months and accordingly amount of Rs.27,000/- be awarded towards loss during the period of treatment. 11. Accordingly, re-worked compensation is as under:- Income Rs.9,011/- per month Rs.9,011/- per month Future Prospects 30% (9011+2703) Rs.11,714/- Permanent disability 7% of Rs.11,714/- Rs.820/- Multiplier 13 13 Total loss of earning capacity Rs.820 x 12 x 13 Rs.1,27,920/- Medical expenses, special diet, transportation, attendant charges etc. Rs.15,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.20,000/- Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- (awarded by Tribunal) Rs.40,000/- Compensation for loss of future amenities and future aspects Rs.40,000/- Loss of income during treatment Rs.27,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.75,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.2,54,920/- RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2290-2000 -6- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,54,920/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.75,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.1,79,920/- 12. Appellant-claimant is, therefore, held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,79,920/- along with 7.5% interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of petition till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 13. It is made clear that appellant/claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay in filing the appeal and also restoration application i.e. 532 days in filing the appeal and 152 days in seeking restoration, interest shall be payable from the date of filing after excluding 684 days. 14. In view of above, CM-3650-CII-2001 for production of additional evidence in the shape of out patient ticket and C. T. scan requisition form is also dismissed. 15. Appeal is allowed accordingly. 16. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 16.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.17 17:43 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document