FAO-3359-2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 233 FAO-3359-2001 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Sube Singh .....Appellant Versus Deepak Kumar and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Ram Kumar Saini, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimant against the Award dated 23.05.2001 passed by MACT, Hisar (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.57 of 27.05.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.70,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.11.1997 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving offending Motor Cycle bearing No.HR-21A-1995 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), and also owned by him, which was insured with respondent No.2. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the accident resulting in injuries to petitioner Sube Singh took place on account of rash and negligent driving of motor cycle No. HR-21A-1995 by respondent No.1 ? OPP. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 2 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Relief. 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and severally. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal 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.1, while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 and 2 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 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 and the same is affirmed. 7. 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. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 3 perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 20% permanent disability on account of limitation of supinalion pronation by 20 decrees, weakness of dorsiflexion at wrist and fingers, weak grip and grasp of left hand and inability to lift objects by left hand and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.70,000/-. Learned counsel further argued that on account of permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has also not been awarded 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. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants 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. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 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. 10. 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, RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 4 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. 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another, has held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads:- Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing expenditure, food and miscellaneous (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv) It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 5 disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. 12. As per the version of claimant, he has suffered multiple injuries in the accident and has become permanently disabled and huge amount has also been spent on his treatment. He used to work as a Computer Operator in the S.K.Computer and Type Centre, Hansi and earn Rs. 4000/- per month. He produced his Diploma of computer Ex.P-4. To prove his case, claimant has stepped into the witness box as PW-7 and stated his case on oath as well. 13. To prove his injuries, claimant has examined PW-2 Dr. K.N. Shrivastava, who deposed that claimant was brought to the hospital on 19.11.1997 and he has tendered the copy of medico-legal report Ex. P-1, according to which he had suffered four injuries. The injuries suffered by him were in abdomen, abrasion on left leg, lacerated wound on left elbow joint and another lacerated wound on left elbow joint. 14. PW-1 Dr. Ashok Arora deposed that on 20.11.1997, patient was admitted in his hospital and had suffered compound and communitted fracture left radius with radial nerve palsy with extensor tenden cut with multiple injuries and he was operated upon and was discharged on 25.11.1997. He had charged Rs.3,050/- from the patient. As such, the claimant had suffered grievous injuries and he was operated upon. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous which take a considerable long time to heal and in view of the severity of injuries suffered by the claimant, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of pain and sufferings. 14. PW-4 Sunil Kumar, working as Assistant in the office of Hartron, Haryana produced the Attendence Register Ex.P-3 where claimant’s attendance was marked. He deposed that claimant was getting training in RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 6 this institute and got one year diploma Ex.P-4. As such, it is established that claimant had obtained diploma in computer and was working as a computer operator. 15. However, learned Tribunal did not hold his salary to be Rs.4000/- per month as the proprietor of S.K.Computer, where he was employed was not examined and no cogent and convincing evidence had been led to establish the monthly income of the claimant. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, 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 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 of claimant and since the accident had taken place in the year 1998, his monthly income is assessed as Rs.3,000/- as he possessed a diploma in Computers. 16. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and during this period, the claimant would not have been able to do any work and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,000/- on account of loss of income. 17. During the period of treatment, he must have also spent some amount on special diet, in engaging an attendant and on transportation and RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 7 accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- under all these heads. 18. Claimant was 26 years of age and as per testimony of PW-3 Dr. Joginder Kapoor, claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 70 per cent due to restricted movements of the fingers of left hand and stiffness of left flexion and extension movements of left upper limb. He also stated that the hand of the appellant cannot come in original position due to this accident. However, claimant was got re-examined at PGIMS, Rohtak by the Tribunal to assess his disability and as per the disability assessed by PGIMS, Rohtak, he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20 per cent on account of limitation of supinalion pronation by 20 degrees, weakness of dorsiflexion at wrist and fingers, weak grip and grasp of left hand and inability to lift objects by left hand. Accordingly, it is established that claimant had suffered 20% permanent disability in relation to his fingers, left hand and wrist. The claimant was 26 years of age and this disability will remain with him throughout his life and will certainly diminish his earning capability. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. 19. Monthly income of claimant has been assessed to be Rs.3,000/-. Since, claimant was 26 years of age on the date of accident, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future 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, his monthly income comes out to Rs.4,200 /- per month. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 8 20. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.840/- (Rs.4,200 × 20%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.10,080/- per annum (Rs.840 × 12). 21. The claimant was 26 years of age and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 17 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.1,71,360/- (Rs.10,080 × 17) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 22. The claimant has suffered permanent disability in his fingers, left hand and wrist, which will certainly impact his day-to-day activities throughout his life and accordingly he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of loss of amenities. 22. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant is assessed as under:- Sr. Compensation Amount 1. Pain and Sufferings Rs.20,000/- 2. Loss of Income during Treatment (3 months) Rs.9,000/- 3. Special Diet and Transportation Rs.7,500/- 4. Loss of Income due to Permanent Disability Rs.1,71,360/- (Rs.10,080 × 17) 5. Loss of amenities Rs.15,000/- 5. Total Compensation Rs.2,22,860/- (Rounded off to Rs.2,23,000/-) 23. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- (Rs.2,23,000/- − Rs.70,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 and 2, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document FAO-3359-2001 9 date of filing of claim petition i.e. 27.05.2000, till realization. 24. 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. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable Yes RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.29 15:16 I am approving this document