(1) FAO-3992-2001 (O&M) ISHWAR CHAND ....APPELLANT VERSUS SHAM LAL AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS (2) FAO-3993-2001 (O&M) SANDEEP ....APPELLANT VERSUS SHAM LAL AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS 1. Judgment reserved on 15.07.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 12.08.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 12.08.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof. Nil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Appeal qua respondent No.1 dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.04.2019. Service of respondent No.2 dispensed with vide order dated 23.05.2018. Mr. Ravinder G. Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. This judgment shall dispose of the aforesaid two appeals which have emanated out of the same Award. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16.05.2001 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.71 of 1995 and MACT Case No.72 of 1995 under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, vide which claimant-Ishwar Chand has been awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,540/- and claimant-Sandeep has been awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/-, respectively, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the institution till realization as compensation on account of injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident which took place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle No.DAQ-1201 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) which is owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed in both the claim petitions by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,71,540/- in MACT Case No.71 as compensation for the injuries suffered by claimant-Ishwar Chand and Rs.20,000/- as compensation in MACT Case No.72 for the injuries suffered by claimant- Sandeep along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. 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.1, while driving offending vehicle which is owned by respondent No.2 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. 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 Registry and the present appeals have to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned Award. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on files in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The compensation has not been awarded under the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as per settled law and the impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced in both the claim petitions. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document the claim petitions and no interference in the same is thus called for. 11. 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. Compensation in FAO-3992-2001, Ishwar Chand Vs. Sham Lal and others, arising out of MACT Case No.71 of 1995:- 12. Stand of claimant Ishwar Chand in the pleadings and while appearing as PW4 is that he had suffered multiple injuries all over his body in the accident which took place on 22.11.1994. He suffered fractures on his left and right thigh and remained hospitalized at PGI, Chandigarh upto 23.01.1995 where he was operated upon four times. He was again admitted at PGI, Chandigarh on 03.10.1995 and was discharged from there after two months and he also tendered VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document expenses incurred on treatment and transportation etc. and he tendered the bills Ex.PW4/2 to Ex.PW4/122 as well as in engaging an attendant vide bills Mark-A to Mark-L. As per his version, he had also suffered loss in business amounting to Rs.1,85,000/- and he tendered the balance sheets for the year 1993-94 to 1995-96 Ex.PW6/1 to Ex.PW6/3. 13. PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sain has been examined who proved the orthopaedic trauma record proforma Ex.P1 giving details of the injuries and treatment given to the claimant. He deposed that claimant was admitted in the hospital on 22.11.1994. He had suffered compound fractures of his right as well as left femur. He was operated upon for left side on 23.11.1994 and in his right leg, a plate was inserted for fixation of the fracture and he was discharged on 23.01.1995. 14. PW2 Dr. V.K. Khosla, Head of the Department of Neurosurgery, PGI, Chandigarh also produced original record and tendered the disability certificate of claimant Ex.PW2/1 issued by Board of Doctors on 02.08.1996. He deposed that claimant has suffered 40% disability qua the whole body but he further stated that the condition of claimant is likely to improve and for that reason, he has been directed to appear before the Board of Doctors for reassessment of disability. 15. As such, from the testimony of PW1 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Sain, it is established that claimant had suffered fractures in his right and left leg and he was operated upon and now he has become disabled to the extent of 40% qua whole body. Learned Tribunal held that the disability of the claimant is not going to VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document physically and granted a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation on account of permanent disability, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.33,540/- for expenses incurred on treatment and Rs.10,000/- for transportation, good diet besides Rs.18,000/- for loss of income during the period of treatment for six months and in all, Rs.1,71,540/- was awarded. 16. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. No doubt claimant was a businessman and running his own firm but he will not be able to give similar managerial skills to the firm as he was providing prior to accident as 40% permanent disability qua whole body shall certainly affect his earning capabilities and he will not be able to work with the same zeal. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability as against Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 17. Claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for ‘pain and sufferings’ which in my opinion has been adequately awarded and no enhancement in the same is thus called for. 18. Claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.33,540/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment on the basis of bills Ex.PW4/2 to Ex.PW4/108. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that the patients or their attendants some times do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the expenses incurred on treatment particularly, because claimant is likely to spend some more amount on future treatment. Accordingly, he is held entitled to sum of Rs.45,000/- towards ‘expenses VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3992-2001 (O&M) FAO-3993-2001 (O&M) - 7- incurred on treatment’. 19. Claimant has also been awarded Rs.10,000/- for the expenses incurred on transportation and on special diet. However, he remained admitted in the hospital for 22.11.1994 to 23.01.1995 and for another two months w.e.f. 03.10.1995 onwards. He must have remained bedridden at home for at least six months and during this period, he must have visited the hospitals and must have also spent some amount on special diet and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under these heads as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20. During this period of six months, claimant must have also engaged an attendant to look after him and he is also held entitled to sum of Rs.10,000/- for ‘engaging an attendant’. 21. As per testimony of PW6 P.K. Vasudeva, Chartered Accountant, claimant has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs.94,081/- during the year 1995-96 and Tribunal has ignored his testimony with the observations that he has not given the details of the calculations and as per balance sheets for the period ending on 31.03.1994 and for the year 1995, the difference in the profits comes out to Rs.6,796/- and as such, his testimony that claimant has suffered loss of income to the tune of Rs.94,081/- was not believed. However, claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.18,000/- for loss of income during the period of treatment by considering his income to be Rs.3,000/- per month which in my opinion is just and adequate. 22. The claimant has suffered fractures in his right and left leg and now he has become disabled to the extent of 40% qua whole body and this disability VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document activities and he will not able to walk, run and lift any weight properly. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of on account of ‘loss of amenities of life’ i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life. 23. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Awarded (₹) 1. Loss of income due to permanent disabil- ity 1,00,000 2. Loss of income during treatment 18,000 3. Transportation & special diet 15,000 4. Attendant charges 10,000/- 5. Pain and sufferings 50,000 6. Loss of amenities 20,000 7. Expenses incurred on treatment 45,000 Total Compensation 2,58,000 Interest 9% 24. Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimant comes to Rs.86,460/- (Rs.2,58,000/- - Rs.1,71,540/-), rounded off to Rs.86,500/-. Compensation in FAO-3993-2001, Sandeep Versus Sham Lal a nd others , arising out of MACT Case No.72 of 1995 25. Stand of claimant Sandeep is that he had suffered grievous injuries and was treated at PGI, Chandigarh. Respondents have led in evidence his treatment record Ex.R1. The Tribunal has held that claimant has suffered fracture in his right leg and he was operated upon at PGI, Chandigarh where a nail and rod VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document for removal of implant and nail by Dr. Suresh Singla and Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.5,000/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment and another sum of Rs.5,000/- for special diet, transportation etc. and in all, he was awarded Rs.20,000/- as compensation. 26. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate. Claimant has admittedly suffered fracture and he was operated upon twice i.e. once at the time of affixing the rod and nail and secondly, at the time of removal of the implant. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ as against Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 27. Claimant has led in evidence bills Ex.PW5/1 to Ex.PW5/6 for a sum of Rs.1,500/- besides prescription slips issued by Dr. Suresh Singla for Rs.3,000/- and he has been awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the expenses incurred on the treatment. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that the patients or their attendants some times do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guesswork has thus to be applied while assessing the expenses incurred on treatment. Accordingly, he is held entitled to sum of Rs.7,500/- towards ‘expenses incurred on treatment’. 28. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any work and look after his business. It can be assumed that he must be earning at least Rs.2,500/- per month and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- on account VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 29. The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, transportation etc. However, no compensation has been awarded for engaging an attendant. Since he had suffered fracture and he must have remained bedridden for at least three months, he must have availed the services of an attendant and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- for special diet, transportation and engaging an attendant. 30. Accordingly, the compensation to be awarded to the appellant/claimant is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Awarded (₹) 1. Loss of income during treatment 7,500 2. Transportation, special diet & Attendant charges 7,500 3. Pain and sufferings 15,000 4. Expenses incurred on treatment 7,500 Total Compensation 37,500/- Interest 9% 31. Accordingly, enhanced compensation payable to claimant comes to Rs.17,500/- (Rs.37,500/- - Rs.20,000/-). 32. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the appeals in hand are partly accepted with costs. 33. In FAO-3992-2001, appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.86,500/- 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. 22.05.1995 till realization payable by the respondents No.1 to 3 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3992-2001 (O&M) FAO-3993-2001 (O&M) - 11- jointly and severally. 34. In FAO-3993-2001, appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.17,500/- 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. 22.05.1995 till realization payable by the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 35. 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. 36. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of the connected case(s). 37. Pending misc. application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 12.08.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Vishal Vardhan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether reportable. : Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.08.12 17:09 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document