FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234+291 Date of decision: 14.07.2026 1. FAO-3959-2001 GURMIT KAUR AND ANOTHER ....Appellants Versus AMLOK SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents 2. FAO-3961-2001 GURMIT KAUR ....Appellant Versus AMLOK SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. R.S. Rawat, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. P.S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. The aforesaid two appeals have been instituted by the claimants against the Award dated 14.08.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (for short “Tribunal”) in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellants, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by Smt. Gurmit Kaur and death of Sh. B.S. Saini. 2. Claim petition No.RT-148 of 28.02.1996/24.01.1997, titled Gurmit Kaur Vs. Amlok Singh and others was instituted by claimant-Gurmit Kaur, for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 2- accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2, while driving the offending vehicle No.MH-26-5447, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. Claim petition No.RT-13 of 28.02.1996/12.02.1998, titled Gurmit Kaur and Anr. Vs. Amlok Singh and others was instituted by wife and daughter of deceased B.S. Saini for grant of compensation on account of death of B.S. Saini in the same accident. 4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Bachittar Singh Saini died and Gurmit Kaur sustained injuries in the road accident on 21.03.1995 at about 12:15 PM near Santhpur Aurad Road near Kappikeri Bus Stand, due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.MH-26-5447 by Surinder Singh respondent? OPP 2. Whether the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Bachittar Singh Saini? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending jeep was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident?OPR 4. Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?OPP 5. Relief.” 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the claimant- Gurmit Kaur, on account of injuries suffered by her while a sum of Rs.3,75,600/- was awarded as compensation to claimants Gurmit Kaur and Anr on account of death of B.S. Saini along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 3- severally. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 8. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeals and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch and the appeals in hand shall be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award. 9. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under Issue No.1 that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 while driving the offending vehicle bearing No.MH-26-5447, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO-3961-2001 argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 30% permanent disability and she has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.70,000/- for pain and sufferings, medical expenses, loss of income and permanent disability. Learned counsel further argued that on account of permanent disability suffered by her, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has also not been awarded AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 4- under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO-3959-2001 argued that the impugned award vide which compensation of Rs.3,75,600/- has been awarded is based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be modified and enhanced amount of compensation should be awarded. Learned counsel contends that income of the deceased has been assessed on lower side and multiplier of 5 has wrongly been applied. Learned counsel further contends that future prospects have also not been added to the monthly income of the deceased contrary to settled provisions of law. Learned counsel next contends that no compensation has been paid under conventional heads i.e. loss of consortium and loss of estate and he prayed that compensation be awarded under all the heads and same should be suitably enhanced. 12. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other, 2018 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 333 Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram & Others, (2021) 11 SCC 780 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the award in question in both petitions is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 5- Compensation in FAO-3961-2001, Gurmit Kaur Vs. Amlok Singh and others 14. The law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded 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 normal relief. 15. 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; AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 6- (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 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. 16. As per version of claimant-Gurmit Kaur as deposed by her while appearing as PW3, she had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. She suffered fracture right femur and she remained admitted in Nizam Hospital, Hyderabad. She has led in evidence discharge certificate Mark AB and deposed that she has spent about Rs.1,25,000/- on her treatment and has led in evidence bills Mark A to Mark Z and Mark A/1 to Mark A/20. She further deposed that she remained under treatment at Civil Hospital, Mohali and she has been issued disability certificate Ex. P5 by Civil Surgeon, Ropar. She deposed that she was doing stitching work on part-time basis and used to earn Rs.2,500/- per month and after the accident, she will not be able to do the stitching work. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 7- 17. The Tribunal observed that claimant has not produced and proved the medical bills to prove the exact amount spent by her on treatment and awarded her a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards expenses incurred on treatment. Tribunal further held that claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 30% which will impair her earning capability and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was awarded on account of permanent disability, loss of income and on account of pain and sufferings and she was awarded a total sum of Rs.70,000/-, which is inadequate. 18. The claimant has suffered fracture of the right femur. It is a matter of common knowledge that these injuries take a long time to heal and pain component in such injuries is also enormous and taking into consideration the severity of the injuries, a sum of Rs.12,000/- is awarded to the claimant on account of pain and sufferings. 19. As per version of claimant, she was earning Rs.2,500/- per month by stitching work but no cogent and convincing evidence has been led in this regard and her oral testimony cannot be believed being self-serving. However, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 has held that merely because claimants are unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of the deceased is not a ground to discard the oral evidence and in such cases, the Court is required to ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income. Moreover, it is also well settled that where the AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 8- victim/deceased belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. As such, some amount of guess work has to be applied while assessing the income and since the accident had taken place in the year 1995, her monthly income is assessed as Rs.1,500/- being a homemaker. 20. Claimant has suffered 30% disability and it must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and the claimant would not have been able to do any work during this period of three months and she is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,500/- for loss of income during the period of treatment. 21. During the period of treatment, she must have engaged an attendant, spent some amount on special diet and on transportation and accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,000/- under all these heads. 22. As per disability certificate Ex. P5, claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability which will certainly diminish her earning capability and in these circumstances, the amount of compensation has to be assessed by taking into consideration the percentage of disability suffered by the victim 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. 23. As discussed above, the income of claimant has been assessed as Rs.1,500/- per month. Claimant was 52/53 years of age on the date of accident. As such, 10% amount has to be added to her monthly income towards future AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 9- prospects in view of law laid down in 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, her monthly income comes out to Rs.1,650/- per month (Rs.1,500/- + Rs.150/-). 24. Claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 30% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.495/- (Rs.1,650/- × 30%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.5,940/- per annum (Rs.495/- × 12) . 25. The claimant was 52-53 years of age and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 11 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.65,340/- (Rs.5,940/- × 11) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 26. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant is assessed as under:- Sr. Under Head Amount 1. Age of claimant 52–53 years 2. Monthly income of claimant Rs.1,500/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 10% Rs.150/- 4. Total monthly income Rs.1,650/- 5. Permanent disability 30% 6. Monthly loss of income Rs.495/- 7. Annual loss of income Rs.5,940/- 8. Multiplier 11 9. Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.65,340/- 10. Pain and sufferings Rs.12,000/- 11. Loss of income during treatment Rs.4,500/- 12. Special diet, attendant charges and transportation Rs.7,000/- 13. Total Compensation Rs.88,840/- (rounded off to Rs.89,000/-) 14. Interest 9% 27. Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimant comes to AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 10- Rs.19,000/- (Rs.89,000/- - Rs.70,000/-) Compensation in FAO-3959-2001, Gurmit Kaur and Anr. Vs. Amlok Singh and others 28. As per version of claimants, deceased-B.S. Saini was working with LIC and to prove his income, the claimants have examined PW2-Tarsem Singh, who has led in evidence the salary certificate Ex. A4. A perusal of the same shows that deceased was getting salary of Rs.8,649/- per month. The Tribunal after deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses assessed monthly loss of dependency to be Rs.5,760/-. Taking into consideration the age of the deceased to be 55 years, multiplier of 5 was applied. In addition to this, a sum of Rs.20,000/- was awarded for the expenses incurred on treatment, Rs.10,000/- for funeral expenses and in all, a sum of Rs.3,75,600/- was awarded as compensation. 29. However, no future prospects have been added to the monthly income of the deceased. The deceased was 55 years of age and was in permanent employment and as such, 15% amount has to be added to the monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), and after adding the same, the monthly income comes to Rs.9,946/- (Rs.8,649 + Rs.1,297) and the annual income comes out to Rs.1,19,352/-. The accident had taken place in the year 1995 and accordingly, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is deducted towards income tax and after deducting the same, the annual income comes out to Rs.99,352/-. 30. Deceased has left behind two dependents i.e. wife and daughter, and as such, 1/3rd of the income has to be deducted towards personal and living expenses as per law laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) and after deducting AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 11- the same, the annual loss of dependency comes out to Rs.66,235/- (Rs.99,352/- − Rs.33,117/-). 31. Since deceased was 55 years of age, multiplier of 11 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the total loss of dependency comes out to Rs.7,28,585/-. 32. As per law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) a sum of Rs.70,000/- is payable towards conventional heads i.e. Rs.40,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- on account of funeral expenses. However, the judgment in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) was passed in the year 2017 and taking into consideration the price index prevalent in the year 1995, the claimant No.1 is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.7,500/- for funeral expenses and Rs.7,500/- for loss of estate. Likewise, claimant No.2 is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for parental consortium. 33. Learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- as per bills produced by the claimants and there is no scope for further enhancement. 34. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimants is assessed as under:- S.No. Under Head 1. Age of deceased 55 years 2. Monthly income of deceased Rs.8,649/- per month 3. Future prospects @ 15% Rs.1,297/- 4. Total monthly income Rs.9,946/- 5. Annual income Rs.1,19,352/- 6. Deduction towards income tax Rs.20,000/- 7. Net annual income Rs.99,352/- 8. Number of dependents 2 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 12- 9. Deduction towards personal expenses of the deceased Rs.33,117/- (1/3rd) 10. Annual loss of dependency Rs.66,235/- 11. Multiplier 11 12. Loss of dependency Rs.7,28,585/- 13. Compensation under conventional heads to claimant No.1- wife Rs.35,000/- 14. Compensation to claimant No.2 (daughter) towards loss of parental consortium Rs.20,000/- 15. Medical expenses Rs.20,000/- (already awarded by the Tribunal) 16. Total Compensation Rs.8,03,585/- 17. Interest 9% 35. Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimants comes to Rs.4,27,985/- ( Rs.8,03,585/- − Rs.3,75,600/-) (rounded off to Rs.4,28,000/-). 36. As a result of aforesaid discussion, both the aforesaid appeals are partly accepted with costs. 37. In FAO-3961-2001, appellant- Gurmit Kaur is held entitled to a sum of Rs.19,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 28.02.1996 till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally. 38. In FAO-3959-2001, appellants Gurmit Kaur and Anr are held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,28,400/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 28.02.1996/12.02.1998 till realization payable by respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with proportionate interest be paid to claimants No.2 ( daughter of the deceased) while balance amount be AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-3959-2001 & FAO-3961-2001 - 13- paid to claimant No.1 (wife) along with proportionate interest. 39. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued 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. 40. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 41. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 14.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.17 18:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment