IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1749-2002 (O&M) Ishwar Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Suresh and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 01.04.2026 Pronounced on: 02.04.2026 Pronounced fully/opera8ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.5- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant–injured assailing the award dated 20.07.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, on the limited aspect of inadequacy of compensa0on. 2. The brief facts, as emana0ng from the record, are that on 07.02.1999, the appellant was travelling in jeep bearing registra0on No. HR- 16A-0706 when, owing to dense fog, the said vehicle first struck a tractor and was therea5er sta0oned on the roadside. Subsequently, another jeep bearing registra0on No. HR-16A-6098, being driven rashly and negligently, rammed into the sta0onary jeep, resul0ng in fatal injuries to the driver and grievous injuries to the appellant. The appellant sustained mul0ple injuries, ul0mately leading to amputa0on of both his legs below the knee, thereby rendering him permanently disabled. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1749-2002 (O&M) 3. The appellant filed a claim pe00on under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensa0on of ₹10,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal, upon apprecia0on of evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of jeep No. HR-16A-0706 and awarded a sum of ₹3,30,000/- along with interest. 4. Aggrieved by the quantum so awarded, the present appeal has been filed seeking enhancement. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to properly assess the impact of permanent disability on the earning capacity of the appellant. It is submi=ed that the appellant, aged 45 years at the 0me of accident, lost both his legs and, therefore, suffered 100% func0onal disability. It is further argued that the Tribunal did not adequately compensate the appellant under various heads in light of se=led legal principles. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurer does not dispute the extent of disability but submits that there is no cogent evidence regarding the income of the appellant and that the compensa0on awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the par0es and perused the record, this Court finds that the finding of negligence recorded by the learned Tribunal has a=ained finality, as the same has not been assailed by any of the respondents. The scope of the present appeal is thus confined to the determina0on of just compensa0on. 8. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered amputa0on of both legs below the knee. The disability cer0ficate duly proved on record establishes that the appellant has suffered 100% permanent disability. In such circumstances, the dis0nc0on between physical and func0onal disability assumes significance. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, 2011 ACJ (1), in cases where the injury results in total incapacita0on to carry on the avoca0on, the func0onal disability NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1749-2002 (O&M) has to be treated as 100%. Applying the said principle, the appellant is to be treated as having suffered complete loss of earning capacity. 9. As regards income, though the appellant claimed a monthly earning of ₹3,500/-, no documentary evidence has been produced in support thereof. In such circumstances, recourse is required to be taken to minimum wages prevalent at the relevant 0me. The minimum wages in the State of Haryana in the year 1999 were approximately ₹1,901/- per month. Taking a reasonable and rounded figure, the monthly income of the appellant is assessed at ₹1,900/-, i.e. ₹22,800/- per annum. 10. In view of the law laid down in Naonal Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680, an addi0on towards future prospects is warranted even in cases of self-employed persons. Considering the age of the appellant (45 years), an addi0on of 25% is made, thereby enhancing the annual income to ₹28,500/-. 11. Applying the appropriate mul0plier of 14, as per the age of the appellant, the loss of future earning capacity works out to be ₹3,99,000/- (₹28,500 × 14). Given the nature of disability, the en0re loss is to be taken into account. 12. In addi0on to loss of earnings, the claimant is en0tled to compensa0on under non-pecuniary heads. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in R.D. Ha+angadi vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. 1995 SCC (1) 551, has emphasized that compensa0on must adequately cover pain and suffering, loss of ameni0es, and the overall impact on quality of life. 13. Considering the grievous nature of injuries, par0cularly the amputa0on of both legs, the appellant is awarded ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹1,00,000/- towards loss of ameni0es, inconvenience, and frustra0on of life. 14. The appellant would necessarily require assistance for day-to-day ac0vi0es for the remainder of his life. Even if such services are rendered by NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1749-2002 (O&M) family members, the claimant is en0tled to compensa0on towards a=endant charges. Taking a modest amount of ₹1,000/- per month and applying the mul0plier of 14, the a=endant charges are assessed at ₹1,68,000/-. 15. The amount of ₹30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical and miscellaneous expenses is found to be reasonable and is accordingly affirmed. 16. Thus, the total compensa0on payable to the appellant is recalculated as under:
Loss of future earning capacity : ₹3,99,000/-
Medical and miscellaneous expenses : ₹30,000/-
Pain and suffering : ₹25,000/-
Loss of ameni0es : ₹1,00,000/-
A=endant charges : ₹1,68,000/-
Total : ₹7,22,000/- 17. A5er deduc0ng the amount of ₹3,30,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa0on comes out to be ₹3,92,000/-. 18. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellant shall be en0tled to an enhanced compensa0on of ₹3,92,000/-, which shall be payable by respondent Nos.4 and 5 jointly and severally, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe00on 0ll its realiza0on. 19. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 02.04.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 02.04.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.02 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document