FAO NO.2001 OF 20 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SANJIV KUMAR Vs KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS. 1 The date when the judgment was reserved 2 The date when the judgment is 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. for respondent No.3 HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby awarded in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. 2. As sole issue for determin quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.2001 SANJIV KUMAR KRISHAN KUMAR AND ORS. The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Shiv Kumar Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sanjiv Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. awarded in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. As sole issue for determination in present appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2001 of 2024 (O&M) …Appellant …Respondents The date when the judgment was reserved 21.04.2026 pronounced 02.06.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 02.06.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Insurance Company. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for compensation to the tune of Rs.5,54,017/- was awarded in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of injuries suffered by ation in present appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity. 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the Award dated 31.01.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal (for was awarded in favour of the appellant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization on account of injuries suffered by ation in present appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 ARGUMENTS ON BHELAF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant remained admitted in Swastik Hospital, Karnal from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020; underwent major neurosurgical intervention; remained in coma for a considerable period; one portion of skull bone was required to be re grave injuries, the Tribunal awarded a meager amount of pecuniary heads collectively and further attendant charges, special diet and future treatment. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference. DISCUSSION AN 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. 6. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” 2024 (O&M) ARGUMENTS ON BHELAF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT earned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant remained admitted in Swastik Hospital, Karnal from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020; underwent major neurosurgical intervention; remained in coma for a considerable period; one portion of skull bone was removed and preserved in the abdominal region and was required to be re-fixed through a future surgery. It was argued that despite such grave injuries, the Tribunal awarded a meager amount of pecuniary heads collectively and further awarded inadequate amounts towards attendant charges, special diet and future treatment. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal called for no interference. DISCUSSION AND REASONING I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble Apex “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” ARGUMENTS ON BHELAF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE earned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant remained admitted in Swastik Hospital, Karnal from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020; underwent major neurosurgical intervention; remained in coma for a considerable period; one removed and preserved in the abdominal region and was fixed through a future surgery. It was argued that despite such grave injuries, the Tribunal awarded a meager amount of ₹60,000/- under all non awarded inadequate amounts towards attendant charges, special diet and future treatment. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble Apex “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 2 ARGUMENTS ON BHELAF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE earned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant remained admitted in Swastik Hospital, Karnal from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020; underwent major neurosurgical intervention; remained in coma for a considerable period; one removed and preserved in the abdominal region and was fixed through a future surgery. It was argued that despite such under all non- awarded inadequate amounts towards ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent No. neither refuted the factum of accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle, however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compensation assessed by the learned I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper- book of the case. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble Apex (2011) 1 SCC 343 MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) (ii) (a) (b) (iii) Non (iv) (v) (vi) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) where there is specific medical evidence corrobora of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospec life”. ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” 7. It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was employed at Narendra Emporium, Pundri besides running his dairy farm. However, no 2024 (O&M) the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (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 only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corrobora of the claimant, the compensation will 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”. ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was employed at Narendra Emporium, Pundri besides running his dairy farm. However, no the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: Loss of earning during the period of treatment; of future earnings on account of permanent disability. pecuniary damages (General Damages) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ts of marriage) and loss of expectation of ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was employed at Narendra Emporium, Pundri besides running his dairy farm. However, no 3 the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury , hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, ting the evidence of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities ts of marriage) and loss of expectation of It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was employed at Narendra Emporium, Pundri besides running his dairy farm. However, no MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 documentary evidence was produced on record to prove the same. The learned Tribunal failed to assess the monthly income o loss of income suffered by him during the period of treatment and recovery. Even in the absence of documentary proof of earnings, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant on the basis of the mini at the relevant time, particularly when there was no evidence to suggest that he was unemployed. In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.” reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the “…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documen required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary eviden adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning ar 15,000/ 7.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional income of the appellant/claimant @ Rs. 9,450/- per month (Rs. 315 per day). Now, as per the record available the 2024 (O&M) documentary evidence was produced on record to prove the same. The learned Tribunal failed to assess the monthly income of the appellant in order to determine loss of income suffered by him during the period of treatment and recovery. Even in the absence of documentary proof of earnings, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant on the basis of the mini at the relevant time, particularly when there was no evidence to suggest that he was unemployed. In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.” (2022) 1 SCC 198, to the effect that in the absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: “…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning ar 15,000/- per month……” In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional income of the appellant/claimant per month (Rs. 315 per day). Now, as per the record available the documentary evidence was produced on record to prove the same. The learned f the appellant in order to determine loss of income suffered by him during the period of treatment and recovery. Even in the absence of documentary proof of earnings, the Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of the appellant on the basis of the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time, particularly when there was no evidence to suggest that he was unemployed. In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.” to the effect that in the absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: “…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of tary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary ce to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional income of the appellant/claimant is assessed per month (Rs. 315 per day). Now, as per the record available the 4 documentary evidence was produced on record to prove the same. The learned f the appellant in order to determine loss of income suffered by him during the period of treatment and recovery. Even in the absence of documentary proof of earnings, the Tribunal ought to have mum wages prevalent at the relevant time, particularly when there was no evidence to suggest that he was unemployed. In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”, to the effect that in the absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to - “…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of tary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary ce to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the ound Rs. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the is assessed per month (Rs. 315 per day). Now, as per the record available the MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 appellant remained hospitalized from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020 and continued to undergo treatment thereafter. Thus, the appellant remained hospitalized for a total period of 20 days, and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said period is assessed as Rs. 6,300/ vehicular accident occurred on 20.08.2020 and the appellant/claimant suffered serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re the injuries, the period of associated with such treatment, it would be reasonable to conclude that the appellant remained incapacitated and unable to effectively pursue his vocation for at least 4 months following the accident. by the appellant deserves to be assessed for a period of 4 months on account of his diminished working capacity during the treatment and recuperation period. Therefore, after considering facts and circumstances of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ Rs. 37,800/ Further, with regard to the claim for compensation under the head of income’, in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing pe suffered by the appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the said head. ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION” 8. In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re fixation. Even though the appellant could produce bills amounting to Rs. 2024 (O&M) appellant remained hospitalized from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020 and continued to undergo treatment thereafter. Thus, the appellant remained hospitalized for a total period of 20 days, and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said period is assessed as Rs. 6,300/- (Rs. 315 x 20). Further, it is evident that the motor vehicular accident occurred on 20.08.2020 and the appellant/claimant suffered injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re-fixation. Having regard to the nature and severity of the injuries, the period of hospitalization and the prolonged recovery necessarily associated with such treatment, it would be reasonable to conclude that the appellant remained incapacitated and unable to effectively pursue his vocation for at least 4 months following the accident. Consequently, the loss of income suffered by the appellant deserves to be assessed for a period of 4 months on account of his diminished working capacity during the treatment and recuperation period. Therefore, after considering facts and circumstances of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ Rs. 37,800/ Further, with regard to the claim for compensation under the head of , in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing pe suffered by the appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION” In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered serious head injuries urosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re fixation. Even though the appellant could produce bills amounting to Rs. appellant remained hospitalized from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020 and continued to undergo treatment thereafter. Thus, the appellant remained hospitalized for a total period of 20 days, and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said (Rs. 315 x 20). Further, it is evident that the motor vehicular accident occurred on 20.08.2020 and the appellant/claimant suffered injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and fixation. Having regard to the nature and severity of hospitalization and the prolonged recovery necessarily associated with such treatment, it would be reasonable to conclude that the appellant remained incapacitated and unable to effectively pursue his vocation for Consequently, the loss of income suffered by the appellant deserves to be assessed for a period of 4 months on account of his diminished working capacity during the treatment and recuperation period. Therefore, after considering facts and circumstances of the present case, loss of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ Rs. 37,800/- (315 x 120). Further, with regard to the claim for compensation under the head of ‘loss of future , in the absence of any cogent evidence establishing permanent disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION” In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered serious head injuries urosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re fixation. Even though the appellant could produce bills amounting to Rs. 5 appellant remained hospitalized from 20.08.2020 to 08.09.2020 and continued to undergo treatment thereafter. Thus, the appellant remained hospitalized for a total period of 20 days, and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said (Rs. 315 x 20). Further, it is evident that the motor vehicular accident occurred on 20.08.2020 and the appellant/claimant suffered injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and fixation. Having regard to the nature and severity of hospitalization and the prolonged recovery necessarily associated with such treatment, it would be reasonable to conclude that the appellant remained incapacitated and unable to effectively pursue his vocation for Consequently, the loss of income suffered by the appellant deserves to be assessed for a period of 4 months on account of his diminished working capacity during the treatment and recuperation period. the present case, loss of (315 x 120). ‘loss of future rmanent disability suffered by the appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered serious head injuries urosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re- fixation. Even though the appellant could produce bills amounting to Rs. MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 4,14,000/- only but keeping in vehicular accident and the follow rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fac account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under is assessed as Rs. ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN 9. For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, the award of compensation under non commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of “15. Keeping in view the above suffered, the ‘ the disability afflicted upon the claimant of the Doctor a claimant under the head ‘ prayer of the claimant was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” 9.1 In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 (O&M) only but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the follow-up treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under is assessed as Rs.7,00,000/-. ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: “15. Keeping in view the above suffered, the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life the disability afflicted upon the claimant of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/ under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar’s case (supra), mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor up treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The t that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under this head AND SUFFERINGS For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the the same is reproduced as under:- “15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries ’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement s reproduced above, we find the request of the appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/ ’, fully conscious of the fact that the appellant for enhancement of compensation , we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble (supra), and having due regard to the 6 mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor up treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The t that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect this head For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. wherein it was held that pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the referred judgments, the injuries long nature of appellant, and the statement s reproduced above, we find the request of the appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/- ’, fully conscious of the fact that the appellant for enhancement of compensation , we find the compensation to be just, In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble and having due regard to the MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medi on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re amount of 9.2 The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous head injuries in the motor vehicular accident, necessitating neurosurgical intervention. The treatment records reveal that a portion of his skull bone subsequent re-fixation, reflecting the grave nature of the trauma suffered by him. Such injuries would not only have caused prolonged pain, suffering and mental agony, but also resulted in facial disfigurement appearance, self consequence that the claimant is required to endure throughout his life and, therefore, deserves to be compensated independently. Considering the the injuries, the invasive surgical procedures undertaken and the lasting effect of the facial disfigurement, this Court deems it just and Rs 2,00,000/- towards facial disfigurement. ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIA 10. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention followed by prolonged post- confined to bed for a period of about 4 months and would have definitely gone for 2024 (O&M) peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medi on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and preserved for subsequent re-fixation. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous head injuries in the motor vehicular accident, necessitating neurosurgical intervention. The treatment records reveal that a portion of his skull bone had to be surgically removed and preserved for fixation, reflecting the grave nature of the trauma suffered by him. Such injuries would not only have caused prolonged pain, suffering and mental agony, but also resulted in facial disfigurement appearance, self-esteem and quality of life. Facial disfigurement is a permanent consequence that the claimant is required to endure throughout his life and, therefore, deserves to be compensated independently. Considering the the injuries, the invasive surgical procedures undertaken and the lasting effect of the facial disfigurement, this Court deems it just and towards facial disfigurement. ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIA In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention followed by -operative care, it can reasonably be inferred that he remained nfined to bed for a period of about 4 months and would have definitely gone for peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention. The medical evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and fixation. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous head injuries in the motor vehicular accident, necessitating neurosurgical intervention. The treatment records reveal that a had to be surgically removed and preserved for fixation, reflecting the grave nature of the trauma suffered by him. Such injuries would not only have caused prolonged pain, suffering and mental agony, but also resulted in facial disfigurement and an adverse impact on his esteem and quality of life. Facial disfigurement is a permanent consequence that the claimant is required to endure throughout his life and, therefore, deserves to be compensated independently. Considering the severity of the injuries, the invasive surgical procedures undertaken and the lasting effect of the facial disfigurement, this Court deems it just and reasonable to award a sum of ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’ In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention followed by operative care, it can reasonably be inferred that he remained nfined to bed for a period of about 4 months and would have definitely gone for 7 peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained cal evidence on record reveals that a portion of his skull bone was surgically removed and fixation. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous head injuries in the motor vehicular accident, necessitating neurosurgical intervention. The treatment records reveal that a had to be surgically removed and preserved for fixation, reflecting the grave nature of the trauma suffered by him. Such injuries would not only have caused prolonged pain, suffering and mental and an adverse impact on his esteem and quality of life. Facial disfigurement is a permanent consequence that the claimant is required to endure throughout his life and, severity of the injuries, the invasive surgical procedures undertaken and the lasting effect of reasonable to award a sum of In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly serious head injuries requiring neurosurgical intervention followed by operative care, it can reasonably be inferred that he remained nfined to bed for a period of about 4 months and would have definitely gone for MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 his post-operative care. However, learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the head of special diet, conveyance charges and attendant charges. Therefore, co 4,00,000/. CONCLUSION 11. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:- S.No. Nature 1. Loss of Income (Rs. 6,300+ Rs. 37,800) 2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization 3. Compensation under other pecuniary head 4. Compensation under pain and sufferings 5. Compensation for facial disfigurement Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Compensation 12. The grant of interest @ 7% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation re from the date of institution of claim petition till its rea 2024 (O&M) operative care. However, learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the head of special diet, conveyance charges and attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. CONCLUSION In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following Nature Loss of Income (Rs. 6,300+ Rs. 37,800) Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Compensation under other pecuniary head Compensation under pain and sufferings Compensation for facial disfigurement Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Compensation The grant of interest @ 7% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation re from the date of institution of claim petition till its rea operative care. However, learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the head of special diet, conveyance charges and attendant mpensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following Amount (in Rs.) Loss of Income (Rs. 6,300+ Rs. 37,800) 44,100/- 7,00,000/- Compensation under other pecuniary head 4,00,000/- Compensation under pain and sufferings 3,00,000/- Compensation for facial disfigurement 2,00,000/- 16,44,100/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal 5,54,017/- 10,90,083/- The grant of interest @ 7% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as ent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation re-assessed from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said 8 operative care. However, learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the head of special diet, conveyance charges and attendant mpensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following Amount (in The grant of interest @ 7% per annum is not equitable and just in “Smt. Supe Dei reported as “Puttamma and thus, the assessed lization. In case the said MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO NO.2001 OF 20 amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to t be deducted from the enhanced compensation. 13. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. June 02, 2026 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2024 (O&M) amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to t be deducted from the enhanced compensation. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 9 amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless he claimant shall In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.06.02 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt