IN THE HIGH Court OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.452 of 2001 (O&M) Suleman . . . Appellant vs. Shri Jagir Singh and others . . . . Respondents * * ** Reserved on: April 30, 2026 Pronounced on: May 04, 2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part : Fully * * * * CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Nikhil Sehrawat and Mr. Siddheshwar Hans, Advocates for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Gupta and Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocates for respondent No.3 – Insurance Company. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been filed by the injured claimant, who was merely 7 years of age at the +me of the accident, seeking enhancement of compensa+on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagadhri vide award dated 18.05.2000. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 25.04.1997, the claimant, along with his mother, had gone to village Buria to a5end a marriage func+on. While they were passing through the main bazaar, a truck bearing registra+on No. HYJ-2627, being driven by respondent No.1 Jagir Singh, came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and struck against the minor claimant without blowing any horn. As a result thereof, the claimant sustained mul+ple grievous injuries, including fracture of the le; leg. The occurrence was witnessed by several persons and was reported to the police, SARITA RANI 2026.05.04 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order FAO No.452 of 2001 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 067947 leading to registra+on of FIR No. 11 dated 26.04.1997 under Sec+ons 279, 337 and 338 IPC. 3. On account of the injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant filed a pe++on under Sec+on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensa+on against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim pe++on was contested by the respondents. 4. Upon apprecia+on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal returned a categorical finding that the accident in ques+on had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by respondent No.1. The Tribunal further held that the claimant had suffered 15% permanent disability on account of malunited fracture of the le; +bia with shortening of limb and atrophic skin. On that basis, compensa+on to the tune of ₹70,000/- was awarded under different heads. 5. The finding rela+ng to negligence of offending vehicle has not been assailed before this Court and has thus a5ained finality. 6. Assailing the award qua quantum of compensa+on, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the compensa+on awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate and not in consonance with the se5led principles governing assessment of compensa+on. It is submi5ed that the Tribunal failed to consider the future loss of earning capacity of the claimant, who has suffered permanent disability at a very young age. It is further argued that no amount has been awarded towards loss of ameni+es, loss of marriage prospects and future medical expenses. It is also contended that the disability of the claimant has subsequently been reassessed at 70% of the whole body, which materially affects his en+re future life. 7. In this regard, an applica+on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC has been filed to bring on record the subsequent disability cer+ficate dated 19.09.2007 along with the earlier cer+ficate. The Insurance Company, despite opportunity, neither filed any reply nor produced any evidence to dispute the said cer+ficate, though it has opposed the applica+on in a rou+ne manner. Page 2 of 5 SARITA RANI 2026.05.04 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order FAO No.452 of 2001 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 067947 8. Having considered the ma5er, this Court finds that the subsequent disability cer+ficate cannot be brushed aside, par+cularly when the injuries suffered by the claimant were of serious nature involving fracture of both bones of the leg with crushing of muscles and associated complica+ons. The medical condi+on of the claimant clearly indicates that the disability has worsened over +me. In the absence of any rebu5al evidence from the insurer, the addi+onal evidence deserves to be accepted. Accordingly, the applica+on under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is allowed and the documents are taken on record. 9. Once the extent of disability is reassessed at 70% of the whole body, the ques+on arises as to the proper determina+on of compensa+on. The claimant was only 7 years old at the +me of accident and, therefore, had no actual income. In such circumstances, no+onal income has to be assessed. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680 has held that future prospects are required to be added even while determining compensa+on on no+onal basis. 10. Accordingly, considering the age of claimant at the +me of accident, which took place way back in April, 1997, the no+onal income of the claimant is taken as ₹15,000/- per annum and by adding 40% towards future prospects, the annual income comes to ₹21,000/-. 11. Considering the nature of injuries and their long-term impact, the func+onal disability of the claimant is assessed at 50%. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand and Ors., AIR 2020 SC 776, has emphasized that func+onal disability, par+cularly in cases involving children, must be assessed in a realis+c manner keeping in view its impact on the en+re life of the vic+m. Applying the said principle, the annual loss of earning comes to ₹10,500/-. 12. For the purpose of mul+plier, the age of the claimant being 7 years, the appropriate mul+plier would be 15, as laid down in Sarla Verma SARITA RANI 2026.05.04 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order FAO No.452 of 2001 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 067947 and Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporaon and Ors., (2009) 6 SCC 121. Thus, the total loss of future earning works out to (10,500 x 15) = ₹1,57,500/-. 13. Apart from the aforesaid, the claimant is also en+tled to compensa+on under conven+onal heads. It cannot be ignored that the claimant has suffered permanent disability at a tender age, which will not only affect his earning capacity but also deprive him of normal enjoyment of life. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, The Naonal Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2014 (14) SCC 396 has recognized that in cases of disability of minors, adequate compensa+on must be granted for loss of ameni+es and future prospects of life. 14. Accordingly, following compensa+on is also awarded to the appellant under different heads:- Heads Compensa7on
Medical expenses already incurred and likely to be incurred for future ₹50,000/-
Special diet, transporta+on and a5endant charges ₹40,000/-
Pain & Suffering ₹25,000/-
Loss of ameni+es and expecta+ons in life ₹50,000/-
Loss of marriage prospects ₹27,500/- 15. Thus, the total compensa+on payable to the claimant is reassessed at ₹3,50,000/-. 16. A;er deduc+ng the amount of ₹70,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa+on comes to ₹2,80,000/-. 17. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The claimant shall be en+tled to enhanced compensa7on of ₹2,80,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe++on +ll realiza+on. The liability to pay the enhanced amount shall remain joint and several upon all the respondents. Page 4 of 5 SARITA RANI 2026.05.04 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order FAO No.452 of 2001 (O&M) 2026:PHHC: 067947 Pending applica+ons, if any, also stand disposed of. May 04, 2026 Sarita (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No Whether reportable? : Yes/No Uploaded on : May 04, 2026 SARITA RANI 2026.05.04 14:33 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order