FAO-4387-2002 IN THE HIG Niranjan Singh Kuldip Singh & O CORAM: HON’BL Present:- Mr. for t Resp Alre Mr. Mr. For r DEEPAK GUPTA, The enhancement of Chandigarh vide quantum of comp 2. It is sustained injuries and negligent d owned by respo petition under S Tribunal and com including ₹60,000 3. Seek contended that accident, the compensation ou Page No. 1 of 3 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HAR IOIN-FAO-4387-2002 FAO No. 4387 of 2002 Date of decision: 26.02 Versus & Others N’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent No.1 and 2/driver and o Already ex-parte. Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharma, Advocate Mr. Deepak Suri, Advocate For respondent-Insurance Company *** TA, J. The present appeal has been pre t of compensation awarded by the ide Award dated 19.07.2002, the ompensation. It is not in dispute that the app uries in a motor vehicular accident d t driving of truck No. HR03-648 espondent No.2, and insured wit er Section 166 of the Motor Ve compensation of ₹1,00,000/- was ,000/- towards permanent disabilit Seeking enhancement, learned c hat despite continuation of his he claimant suffered permanen n ought to have been assessed by HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IN/AND 02(O&M) 6.02.2026 …Appellan …Respondent PTA nd owner ate for any. preferred by the claimant seekin the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna the challenge being confined to th appellant–claimant Niranjan Singh ent dated 07.07.1999 caused by rash 6480, driven by respondent No.1 with respondent No.3. The claim Vehicles Act was allowed by th was awarded under various heads bility. d counsel for the claimant ha his government service after th anent disability and, therefore by applying the multiplier method llant ents eking unal, o the Singh rash No.1, claim the eads, has the fore, thod, JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4387-2002 particularly with been placed upo Satish Chandra Sh 4. Lear for enhancemen service without r retirement, there submitted that proceedings mus 5. The appear and were 6. Upo Certificate Ex.11 permanent disab noticed impairme admittedly conti was produced to 7. In th compensation fo method. It is wel into functional claimant continu Application of t demonstrably im 8. The Chandra Sharma remained in serv service conditio attributable to t apply the multip considering the p Page No. 2 of 3 with reference to post-retirement upon the judgment in New India ra Sharma and another 2022 (2) TA Learned counsel for the Insurance C ment on the ground that the clai ut reduction in salary and must be hereby ruling out any loss of earni hat recovery rights already gran must be preserved. The driver and owner, despite servi ere proceeded against ex parte. Upon appraisal of the record, it x.11, the claimant sustained a disability, with no likelihood of im irment of memory attributable to th ontinued in service without diminu d to establish reduction in pensiona In these circumstances, the Tribuna n for loss of future earning capa well settled that physical disability nal disability affecting earning ca tinues in the same employment of the multiplier method is just y impacts earning capacity. The reliance placed by learned coun rma’s case (supra) is misplaced. In service, evidence established loss ditions and deprivation of cert to the injuries. The Hon’ble Suprem ultiplier method and instead gran he peculiar facts. ent earning capacity. Reliance ha dia Assurance Company Limited v 2) TAC 6.. ce Company has opposed the claim claimant continued in governmen t be drawing the same pension post arning capacity. It has further been granted to the insurer in earlie ervice of notice, have chosen not to , it emerges that as per Disabilit a head injury resulting in 57% f improvement. The Tribunal also to the injury. However, the claiman minution in salary and no evidence ionary benefits post-retirement. unal rightly refrained from assessin capacity by applying the multiplie ility does not automatically translat g capacity, particularly where th ent with unchanged emoluments justified only when the disabilit counsel for the claimant upon Satish . In that case, although the claiman loss of specific allowances, altered certain future financial benefit preme Court ultimately declined to granted a lump sum enhancemen has ed v. claim ment post- been arlier ot to bility 57% also mant ence ssing iplier slate the ents. bility atish mant tered efits ed to ment JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4387-2002 9. The proof of loss of method, particu warranted. 10. At th disability cannot resulting in 57% earning capacity impact of perma functional limitat 11. View the Tribunal und does not comme the claimant. 12. Acco compensation un in an enhanceme Tribunal. 13. The by the responden passed by a Coor the insurer, the I from the insured 14. The 26.02.2026 Jiten Whe Whe Page No. 3 of 3 The present case stands on a simil s of income is concerned. Therefo rticularly with reference to pos At the same time, the nature of inju nnot be ignored. The claimant s 7% impairment and cognitive defici city remains unaffected, compensa ermanent disability on quality of itations. Viewed from this perspective, the a under the head of permanent dis mensurate with the extent and na Accordingly, this Court deems it n under the head of permanent di ement of ₹1,40,000/- over and abo The enhanced compensation shall ndents. However, in view of the ea oordinate Bench in FAO No. 948 of he Insurance Company shall remain red in accordance with law. The appeal is, thus, partly allowed in hether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No hether reportable : Yes/No imilar footing insofar as absence o erefore, adoption of the multiplie post-retirement earnings, is no f injury and the extent of permanen nt suffered significant head injur eficit affecting memory. Even wher nsation must adequately reflect th of life, discomfort, and long-term he amount of ₹60,000/- awarded b t disability appears inadequate and d nature of impairment suffered b s it appropriate to enhance the t disability to ₹2,00,000/-, resultin above the amount awarded by th hall be payable jointly and severall e earlier judgment dated 08.07.2010 8 of 2003 granting recovery rights to main entitled to recover the amoun ed in the aforesaid terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE ce of iplier not nent njury here t the term d by and d by the lting y the erally 2010 ts to ount JITEN SHARMA 2026.02.27 17:34 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document