FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -1- 209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) Date of Decision: 28.07.2026 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD .....APPELLANT VERSUS BALWINDER SINGH AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Narender Kaajla, Advocate for respondent No.2. Respondent No.3-died. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by Insurance Company against the Award dated 02.09.2000 decided by MACT, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.21 of 23.04.1996 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act) vide which a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant (respondent No.1) on account of injuries suffered by him, along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to rash and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -2- negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 (respondent No.2 in the present appeal) while driving the Truck bearing No.PCK-3861 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2 (respondent No.3 in the present appeal), which was insured with respondent No.3 (appellant in the present appeal) and Insurance Company has been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant along with respondents No.1/driver and 2/owner of the offending vehicle, jointly and severally. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether respondent Pritam Singh while driving truck No.PCK 3861 rashly and negligently on 24.10.95 caused the injuries to the claimant? OPA 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation? If so, how much and from which of the respondents? OPA 3. Whether Pritam Singh respondent was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? If not, its effect? OPR-3. 4. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred by PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -3- the Insurance Company. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the impugned award is based on conjectures and surmises. The pleadings of the parties and material on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective while fastening liability upon the Insurance Company despite the fact that there was breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy on account of the fact that driving licence produced by the driver was proved to be fake. Learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported as 1987 ACJ 411, Skahola Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan, while holding Insurance Company liable to indemnify the insured despite coming to the conclusion that the driving licence produced by the driver was fake. Learned counsel contended that once licence is proved to be fake, Insurance Company should be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. As such, the Award passed by the Tribunal is wrong in law and same is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel next contended that excessive compensation has also been awarded to the claimant which is also liable to be reduced. Learned counsel prayed that appeal in hand be accepted and Insurance Company be exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. Learned counsel further argued that the impugned award vide which PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -4- compensation of Rs.60,000/- has been awarded is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. The claimant had suffered 15% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.60,000/- for permanent disability. No amount has been awarded for expenses incurred on treatment, medicines, transportation, engaging an attendant, pain and sufferings and special diet. Learned counsel further argued that adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and same is liable to be enhanced. Learned counsel next contended that despite the fact that the claimant has not filed any appeal or cross-objections for enhancement of compensation, this Court has vide powers to enhance the compensation even in an appeal instituted by the Insurance Company against the award and he prayed that compensation be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others and judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Law Finder Doc ID #2884320, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Taraqqi Lal (Since Deceased) and others. 8. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention that the Insurance Company had examined RW1 Sukh Ram who produced the relevant record of the driving licence from the office of Licensing Authority, Simla. He deposed that as per their record, no driving licence PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -5- bearing No.P/49616/HP/90 was ever issued by their office in the name of Pritam Singh S/o Ram Dass and as such, the driving licence produced by the driver as well as insured was found to be fake. However, the Tribunal while holding Insurance Company liable to indemnify the insured and while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Skahola Insurance Co. Ltd.’s case (supra) held as under: “An owner normally at the time of employing a driver is required to see whether he holds a driving licence or not. The owner has no way of knowing that the said driving licence is a fake driving licence. The owner normally believes it to be a genuine driving licence. Thus, in the present case since the driver was holding a driving licence, the owner cannot be said to be guilty of deliberate breach of the insurance policy. It is not a case where the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding any driving licence. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved from its liability from indemnifying the owner. This issue is disposed of accordingly.” 9. In my considered opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and is not contrary to the settled law. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 ACJ 1868, Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others, has held that owner of the vehicle is expected to check driving skills of the driver and not to run to the licensing authority to verify genuineness of the driving licence before appointing a driver and therefore, once the owner is satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from him to verify PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -6- genuineness of the driving licence issued to the driver and the direction of ‘pay and recover’ given by the High Court was set aside and it was held that Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the amount from the owner/insured. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 2790918, Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. And others, has also held that owner of the vehicle is not expected to verify the authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority and he can only rely upon the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking employment. In case, Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability or to get “pay and recover rights” against the insured/owner on the ground of driving licence being fake, the Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured, meaning thereby, the insured had deliberately committed a breach by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake driving licence or that the owner did not employ due diligence at the time of handing over the vehicle. It has been further held that in the absence of pleading or substantiation that owner allowed the driver to drive a vehicle knowing the licence to be fake, or failed to employ due diligence in the driver’s employment/entrustment, the High Court erred in issuing pay and recover directions against the insured-owner. It has been further held that Insurance Company must prove the willful breach of the policy condition i.e. entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence by the insured in case it wants right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver’s licence is fake. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -7- 10. In the present case also, the driver was possessing a driving licence when he was employed by the insured/owner which must have been seen by the owner. On the other hand, Insurance Company has failed to establish that there was any willful default on the part of the insured and the breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. In these circumstances, Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured and there is thus no reason to interfere with the finding returned by the Tribunal on issue No.3 and same is accordingly affirmed. 11. The next point to be decided is as to whether this Court while deciding an appeal instituted by the Insurance Company against the award of compensation can enhance the compensation without any appeal or cross-objections having been filed by the claimant. The answer to this question is certainly in the affirmative. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Taraqqi Lal’s case (supra), while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2021) 16 SCC 467, Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors., has held that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to enhance compensation even when claimant has not filed cross-appeal or cross-objections as assessment of just compensation is the statutory duty of the court and procedural technicalities cannot deprive claimant of his legitimate entitlement. In Surekha Vs. Santosh’s case (supra), High Court of Judicature at Bombay while deciding the appeal filed by the Insurance Company had held that compensation amount payable to claimants ought to have been Rs.49,85,376/- but declined to PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -8- grant enhancement merely on the ground that claimants/appellants had failed to file cross-appeal. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident cases, the courts should not take hypertechnical approach and should ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants and awarded the enhanced compensation as assessed by Bombay High Court. As such, it is held that compensation can be reassessed by this Court without any appeal having been filed by the claimant. 12. Next point to be decided is as to how much compensation should be awarded to the claimant. The law is well settled that the compensation for injuries suffered by victim in a motor vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a ‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -9- normal relief. 13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another, has held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads:- Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing expenditure, food and miscellaneous (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv) It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -10- evidence of the claimant that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 14. 14. In order to prove the injuries suffered by the claimant, he has examined AW1 K.K. Mehta, who produced the record of treatment from Civil Hospital, Ambala City, where he was initially taken and AW1 has tendered bed head ticket Ex.A1 and MLR Ex.A2. The bed head ticket Ex.A1 shows that claimant had suffered fracture of right femur on account of injury suffered by him in a road accident. As per MLR Ex.A2, he had suffered slight disfigurement of right thigh with hematoma and abrasion on his right heel. 15. AW3 Harbhajan Singh has produced the record from Rajindera Hospital, Patiala and deposed that claimant was admitted in the hospital on 25.10.1995 and discharged on 10.11.1995 and he tendered bed head ticket Ex.A4. The treatment record shows that he had suffered fracture of shaft femur right. He was operated upon and K-nailing was done. As such, claimant is proved to have suffered grievous injuries and he was operated upon. 16. The pain component in such injuries and subsequent surgical interventions is enormous. Therefore, taking into consideration the severity of the injuries, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -11- 17. Claimant was a driver on a truck and as such, he was a skilled person. Accident had taken place in October, 1995 and during those days, even driver of a truck used to earn about Rs.2,000/- per month and accordingly, income of the claimant is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month. 18. As per bed head ticket Ex.A1, claimant was 30 years of age on the date of the accident and as such, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of the law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which takes his income to Rs.2,800/- per month (Rs.2,000/- + Rs.800/-). 19. As per testimony of AW5-Dr. Rakesh Kumar, who was member of the Board which assessed his permanent disability, claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% and he tendered the disability certificate Ex.AW5/A. The disability is on account of fracture of shaft right femur with stiffness of knee. Claimant is a driver of a heavy vehicle and the disability will certainly impact his driving skills and will diminish his earning capability. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. Since, claimant has suffered 15% permanent disability, the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.420/- (Rs.2,800/- × 15%) and the annual loss of income will PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -12- come to Rs.5,040/- per annum (Rs.420 × 12) and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the multiplier of 17 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.85,680/- (Rs.5,040/- × 17) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 20. The treatment of the claimant was at Government Hospital and it can be assumed that the same must be free of cost. However, some medicines and implants have to be purchased, which are normally not supplied by the hospital and some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied while assessing the expenses incurred on treatment. As such, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’. 21. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal. During this period, he would not have been able to do any work. Accordingly, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs.6,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 3) for ‘loss of income during treatment’. 22. During this period of three months, claimant must have spent huge amount on special diet, in engaging an attendant and on transportation. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- for engaging an attendant, Rs.2,500/- for special diet and Rs.2,000/- for transportation. 23. The disability suffered by claimant is going to remain with him throughout his life and it will impact his routine activities. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -13- Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of ‘loss of amenities’. 24. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant Balwinder Singh is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation Assessed by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.15,000/- 2. Expenses incurred on treatment Rs.5,000/- 3. Attendant charges Rs.2,000/- 4. Special diet Rs.2,500/- 5. Transportation charges Rs.2,000/- 6. Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.85,680/- 7. Loss of income during treatment Rs.6,000/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.10,000/- Total Compensation Rs.1,28,180/- (rounded off to Rs.1,28,000/-) 25. Resultantly, with the aforesaid modification in the Award regarding enhancement of compensation appeal filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. Claimant/respondent No.1 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.68,000/- (Rs.1,28,000/- – Rs.60,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 23.04.1996, till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 i.e. driver, insured and insurer, jointly and severally. 26. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2661-2000 (O&M) -14- by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 27. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 28.07.2026 Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.30 18:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document