FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 221 FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 JASWINDER KAUR ......... Appellant VERSUS BHUPINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ridhima Khindria, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Niharika Sharma, AAG, Punjab for respondents No.2 to 4. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) CM-15543-CII-2001 1. The present application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 06 days in filing the appeal. 2. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 06 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Application stands disposed of. FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) 4. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 06.06.2000 decided by MACT, Hoshiarpur (for short “Tribunal”) passed in RBT MACT Case No.109 of 1997/1999 in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -2- which a sum of Rs.1,32,200/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant Jaswinder Kaur due to injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving Punjab Roadways Bus bearing No.PB-12-8882 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was run by the state departments (respondents No.3 and 4). 5. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.PB-12-8882 by respondent No. 1 resulting in injuries to the claimant? OPA 2. To what amount of compensation, the claimant is entitled to? OPA 3. Relief.” 6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 7. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, the Tribunal under issue No.1 came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.PB-12-8882 as well as the driver of the Tempo bearing No.PB-06-2781 in which the claimant was travelling had contributed to the accident equally. Under issue No.2, total compensation of Rs.2,64,400/- was assessed. However, in view of the contributory negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the driver of the tempo, 50% amount was deducted and a sum of Rs.1,32,200/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant, payable by respondents No.1 to 4 jointly and severally. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -3- 8. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 9. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that claimant had suffered injuries while she was travelling in vehicle No.PB-06-2781 which had met with an accident with offending vehicle bearing No.PB-12-8882. Learned Tribunal has held that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of drivers of both the vehicles and the Tribunal apportioned the contributory negligence in the ratio of 50:50. However, after assessing the compensation payable to the claimant, Tribunal deducted 50% of the amount and awarded her only a sum of Rs.1,32,200/- which is contrary to law. Learned counsel next contended that claimant was a third party qua drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles and it was a case of composite negligence and since claimant had not contributed to the accident, no amount could have been deducted out of compensation assessed by the Tribunal as she had the remedy to claim compensation from either of the tort feasors without impleading the other one and the finding to that extent is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 compensation has not been awarded under the pecuniary and non- pecuniary damages as per settled law and the impugned award is thus liable to be PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -4- enhanced. In support of his contentions, the 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. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 argued that the award in question 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. 12. First of all, the point to be determined is whether the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal could have been deducted to the extent of 50% on account of the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles, including the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling. The answer is certainly in the negative. The law in this regard has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID #669171, Khenei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, in which it has been held that in the case of composite negligence, the claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation, as the liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several. It has been further held that it will not be appropriate for the Court/Tribunal to determine the extent of composite negligence of the drivers of two vehicles in the absence of the impleadment of the other joint tort feasors. In such a case, the impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after the passing of the decree or award. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also drawn a distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence and has held that there is a PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -5- difference between contributory and composite negligence. In the case of contributory negligence, a person who has himself contributed to the accident cannot claim compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident to the extent of his own negligence; whereas in the case of composite negligence, a person who has suffered has not contributed to the accident, but the outcome is a combination of the negligence of two or more other persons. 13. In the present case also, the accident took place between Tempo No. PB-06-2781, in which the claimant was travelling and the Punjab Roadways Bus bearing No. PB-12-8882. The claimant did not implead the driver and owner of the tempo in the claim petition before the Tribunal but impleaded the driver and owner of the offending Punjab Roadways bus. The claimant, being a third party, is entitled to sue both or any of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation, as the liability of the drivers and owners of both vehicles is joint and several. The learned Tribunal thus gravely erred in deducting 50% of the amount out of the total compensation assessed by it and the finding to that extent is reversed. 14. Coming to the assessment of compensation, 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, PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -6- 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; (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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -7- 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. In order to prove her case, claimant Jaswinder Kaur stepped into the witness box as PW6 and deposed that she had suffered extremely severe and painful injuries on her right arm. She remained admitted at Christian Medical College & Hospital (CMC), Ludhiana for a long duration, where she was operated upon twice. Her fracture of the right radius was fixed with a K-nail and her olecranon fracture was fixed with a K-nail and tension band wiring. PW4 Sarabjit Kaur (mother of the claimant) and PW5 Dr. Karnail Singh have also supported the claimant’s case. PW5 Dr. Karnail Singh deposed that claimant has suffered 65% permanent disability and that she would not be able to function normally for the rest of her life and her marital prospects have also become bleak. 17. The claimant was of 17 years of age and had suffered grievous injuries. The pain component in such injuries and subsequent surgical interventions is enormous. Therefore, taking into consideration the severity of the injuries and the permanent disability, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ as against Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The claimant proved medical expenses of Rs.30,000/- spent on treatment. It has come in evidence that she remained under treatment for a very long duration and had to undergo major surgical interventions. Applying some PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -8- guesswork as patients and their attendants do not preserve all the bills, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- for the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’. 19. The Tribunal awarded meager amounts for special diet and attendant charges. Considering that it must have taken at least 9 months for her severe injuries and fractures to heal, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for ‘special diet’ and a sum of Rs.10,000/- for ‘engaging an attendant’. 20. Due to prolonged treatment and regular visits to Ludhiana from her village, transportation expenses were inevitable. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- for ‘transportation charges’. 21. As per disability certificate Ex.P2, the claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 65% in relation to her right arm which will certainly diminish her earning capabilities and the avocation or profession she will pursue. 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. 22. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. Prakash Sinha and others while relying upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, Baby Sakshi Greola Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon, has held that minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the concerned State have to be taken into consideration while assessing PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -9- income in the case of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In Karuna Parmar’s case (supra), a girl aged 6 years had died and taking into consideration the minimum wages for skilled workers in the year 2014 to be Rs.223 per day, annual income was assessed as Rs.80,280/- and thereafter, future prospects were added and after applying multiplier of 18, the compensation was assessed. 23. In the present case, the Tribunal assessed the monetary loss of Rs.700/- per month regarding the 'loss of future income' due to permanent disability and applied a multiplier of 16. However, the claimant was 17 years of age and a student and as such, she has to be considered as a skilled person. The minimum wages payable to a skilled worker in the State of Punjab during July 1997 (at the time of the accident) were around Rs.2,500/- per month. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant is taken as Rs.2,500/-. As she was 17 years of age on the date of the accident, 40% amount has to be added to her 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 brings her income to Rs.3,500/- per month (Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,000/-). 24. The claimant has suffered 65% permanent disability, which will severely impact her earning capability. The monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.2,275/- (Rs.3,500/- × 65%) and the annual loss of income will come to Rs.27,300/- per annum (Rs.2,275/- × 12) to which multiplier of 18 has to be applied in view of the guidelines laid down in Karuna Parmar’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and after applying the same, the ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability comes out to Rs.4,91,400/- (Rs.27,300/- × 18). PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -10- 25. The claimant had remained hospitalized and under recovery for a prolonged period. It must have taken at least 9 months for her injuries to heal. Accordingly, she is entitled to compensation of Rs.22,500/- (Rs.2,500/- X 9) for ‘loss of income during treatment’. 26. Claimant was 17 years of age and this disability is going to remain with her throughout her life as it will impact her routine activities. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of ‘loss of amenities’. 27. The claimant was a young girl at the time of the accident and in view of the nature of the injuries suffered by her and the permanent disability, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of 'loss of marriage prospects'. 28. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant Jaswinder Kaur is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation assessed by this Court 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 2. Expenses incurred on treatment Rs.35,000/- 3. Special diet Rs.15,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/- 5. Transportation charges Rs.7,500/- 6. Loss of Future Income due to Permanent Disability Rs.4,91,400/- 7. Loss of income during treatment Rs.22,500/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- 9. Loss of marriage prospects Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.6,91,400/- Interest 9% PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2884-2001 (O&M) -11- 29. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,59,200/- (Rs.6,91,400/- - Rs.1,32,200/-) which is rounded off to Rs.5,59,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 4, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 12.09.1997, till realization. 30. Application bearing CM-15544-CII-2001 has been moved to implead owner and driver of Tempo No.PB-06-2781 as respondents No.5 and 6 in which the claimant/appellant was travelling as they had not been impleaded in the claim petition and 50% amount has been deducted on account of contributory negligence of driver of the offending vehicle and driver of Tempo. However, this Court has held that it was a case of composite negligence and the claimant/appellant can seek compensation from any of the tort feasors and now liability has been fastened upon the driver and owner of the Punjab Roadways bus who have already been impleaded as respondents. The present application has thus become infructuous and is disposed of as such. 31. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 22.07.2026 Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document