FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -1- 213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 MUKESH KUMAR AND ANR. ..... APPELLANTS VERSUS BALJEET SINGH AND ORS. .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Ms. Manveen Kahlon, Advocate Mr. D.S. Pheruman, Advocate for the appellant. Services of respondents No.1 and 2 dispensed with. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimants for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 11.04.2002 decided by MACT, Ferozepur (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT Case No.12 of 10.04.2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act) vide which a sum of Rs.45,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant No.1 Mukesh Kumar and Rs.20,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant No.2 Usha Rani along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving Bus bearing No.PB-02-U-9981 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -2- respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether Mukesh Kumar and Usha Rani sustained injuries to an accident which took place on 1.12.1999 at about 8 AM near F.C.I Godown on Zira-Faridkot main road in the area of Talwandi Bhai and whether the accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus No.PB-02N-9989. If so its effect? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether claimants entitled to received compensation. If so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether claimant petition bad due to non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR 4. Whether driver of the vehicles was not holding valid and effective driving licence. If so its effect? OPR3. 5. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, the Tribunal under issue No.1 came to conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles i.e. offending vehicle bearing No.PB-02-U- 9981 whose owner, driver and insurer have been impleaded as respondents as well as driver of bus bearing No.PB-02-N-9989 in which the claimants were travelling had contributed to the accident equally. Under issue No.2, claimant No.1 Mukesh Kumar was held entitled to a sum of Rs.90,000/- as compensation while claimant No.2 was held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation. However, in view of VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -3- the contributory negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 as well as driver of bus in which claimants were travelling, 50% amount was deducted and a sum of Rs.45,000/- and Rs.20,000/- respectively was awarded as compensation to the claimants, payable by respondents No.1 to 3 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. In the present case, all the respondents i.e. driver, owner and insurer of offending bus No.PB-02-U-9981 have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally and Insurance Company is represented by its counsel and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to the driver (respondent No.1) and owner (respondent No.2) and issuance of notice to both of them is dispensed with. 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 appellants 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 enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -4- Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other. 9. 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 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, 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -5- 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 disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -6- 12. First of all, the point to be determined is as to whether the compensation as assessed by the Tribunal could have been deducted to the extent of 50% on account of contributory negligence of drivers of both the vehicles including the vehicle in which claimants were travelling. The answer is certainly in the negative. Law in this regard has been settled by 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 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 impleadment of other joint tort feasors. In such a case, impleaded joint tort feasor should be left, in case he so desires, to sue the other joint tort feasor in independent proceedings after passing of the decree or award. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also drawn distinction between contributory negligence and composite negligence and has held that there is a 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 of combination of negligence of two or more other persons. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -7- 13. In the present case also, accident took place between two buses i.e. bus bearing No.PB-02-N-9989 in which claimants were travelling and another bus bearing No.PB-02-U-9981. The claimants have not impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of the bus in which they were travelling and have impleaded the driver, owner and insurer of offending vehicle No.PB-02-U-9981. Claimants being third party are entitled to sue both or any of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of drivers of both the vehicles is joint and several. Learned Tribunal thus gravely erred in deducting 50% of the amount out of the total compensation assessed by it and finding to that extent is reversed. Assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by Claimant No.1 Mukesh Kumar 14. In order to prove his case, claimant Mukesh Kumar stepped into to the witness box as AW7 and deposed that he had suffered injuries in the accident and remained admitted in Medical College, Faridkot for two months from where he was referred for treatment to Apollo Hospital, Amritsar. He stated that he cannot walk properly. AW1 is the doctor who had medico legally examined claimant Mukesh Kumar as well as claimant No.2 Usha Rani while he was posted at G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, where he was brought by his father. 15. AW10 Dr. Pawan Bhatia, Incharge of Apollo Hospital, Amritsar deposed that Mukesh Kumar remained admitted in his hospital from 09.02.2000 to 14.03.2000 and again from 05.06.2000 to 02.07.2000 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -8- and two surgeries of the right leg were performed. He stated that due to aforesaid surgeries the amputation of right leg was averted and during the period 14.03.2000 to 05.06.2000, he also kept coming to the hospital for treatment as an outdoor patient. As such, claimant is proved to have suffered grievous injuries for which he was operated upon twice and he remained under treatment upto 02.07.2000 from 01.12.1999 onwards when the accident took place. Claimant was a young boy of 14 years of age and had suffered grievous injuries and pain component in such injuries is enormous and therefore, taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’ as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16. AW10 stated that he had assessed disability of Mukesh Kumar to the extent of 30% but Tribunal did not believe his version as AW10 admitted that he is not an orthopaedic surgeon. He also admitted that an orthopaedic surgeon may not assess the disability to the extent of 30%. He also admitted that he has not assessed the disability as per the parameters/chart fixed by the Civil Surgeon to calculate the percentage of disability and Tribunal thus rightly discarded the testimony of AW10 to hold that claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability. 17. Claimant has also examined AW2 Nazar Singh, Manager Red Cross, Medical Store, G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot, who tendered the original bills Ex.P5 to Ex.P24. AW3 Kamal Bhatia proved bills Ex.P25 to Ex.P28 vide which medicines were purchased on the prescription of Dr. Pawan Bhatia. AW5 also produced VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -9- cash memos Ex.P30 to Ex.P43 vide which medicines were purchased. The total of these bills as assessed by Tribunal comes to Rs.17,215/-. Besides this, AW6 Vinay Kumar, Proprietor of Shiv Medical Aid, Amritsar also produced cash memos Ex.P59 to Ex.P65 regarding purchase of medicines and learned Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.20,589/- in all was spent in purchasing the medicines. Besides this, claimant also paid a sum of Rs.5,400/- as fee to the surgeon and awarded him a sum of Rs.26,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment. However, it has come in evidence that claimant remained under treatment for a long time. Lastly, he was discharged from the hospital on 02.07.2000. Thereafter, he must have spent some more amount in purchasing medicines and it is a matter of common knowledge that patients and their attendants do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guesswork has to be applied in assessing the amount spent on treatment and claimant is held entitled a sum of Rs.35,000/- for the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’ as against Rs.26,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,600/- for special diet during his admission in the hospital for 62 days. However, the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. It must have taken at least 9 months for the injuries to heal and accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for ‘special diet’. 19. Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as attendant charges as claimant remained admitted in hospital for around 2 months VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -10- but even thereafter, he remained under treatment for at least 9 months in all and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for ‘engaging an attendant’. 20. Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.1,400/- for carriage charges for carrying Mukesh Kumar from place of accident to Faridkot and then to Amritsar. However, he remained under treatment for at least 9 months and he must have been commuting from his home to hospital and vice versa. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for ‘transportation charges’. 21. Tribunal has further observed that the exact amount of percentage of disability cannot be ascertained but since the claimant was 14 years of age, he was awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards future loss of income. However, even if, testimony of AW10 is disbelieved that claimant has not suffered disability to the extent of 30%, he must have suffered disability at least to the extent of 20% and it will certainly diminish his earning capabilities and the avocation or profession he 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 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. The claimant was 14 years of age at the time of accident and a student and as such, he has to be considered as a skilled person. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2025 ACJ 1624 titled Karuna Parmar Vs. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -11- 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 income in the case of death of a child because that would be the minimum amount which a child would have earned on attaining the age of majority. In the present case, the accident had taken place on 01.12.1999 and during those days, minimum wages earned by a skilled person were around Rs.3,000/- per month. Accordingly, income of claimant is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. Claimant was 14 years of age on the date of accident and as such, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, his income comes out to Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-). 23. Claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 20% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.840/- (Rs.4,200/- X 20%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.10,080/- per annum (Rs.840 X 12). 24. Claimant was 14 years of age and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 18 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.1,81,440/- (Rs.10,080/- X 18) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to disability. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -12- 25. The claimant No.1 had remained admitted at G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for about two months and kept on visiting hospital even thereafter. It must have taken at least 9 months for the injuries to heal. Accordingly, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.27,000/- for ‘loss of income during treatment’. 26. Resultantly, the compensation is to be awarded to the claimant No.1 is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation assessed by this Court (₹) 1. Pain and sufferings 35,000 2. Medical expenses/Treatment expenses 35,000 3. Special diet 10,000 4. Attendant charges 15,000 5. Transportation charges 5,000 6. Loss of future earning due to permanent disability 1,81,440 7. Loss of income during treatment 27,000 Total 3,08,440 Interest 9% Assessment of compensation on account of the injuries suffered by Claimant No.2 Usha Rani 27. Bills Ex.P18, Ex.P44 to Ex.P58 have been led in evidence vide which medicines were purchased for treatment of claimant No.2 Usha Rani and the total of these bills come to Rs.12,541/-. 28. AW8 also stated that she remained admitted for about one VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -13- month in G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for treatment and Tribunal held that doctor must have charged some amount and she was awarded a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards the expenses incurred on treatment. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that patients and their attendants do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guesswork has to be applied in assessing the amount spent on treatment and claimant is held entitled a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’ as against Rs.16,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 29. Tribunal has held that the injuries suffered by Usha Rani are not of serious magnitude and she has been awarded a sum of Rs.5,500/- towards ‘pain and sufferings’. However, Tribunal has observed that her food pipe got cut/cracked during the accident which certainly is a grievous injury and claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for ‘pain and sufferings’ for injuries in the food pipe, on her forehead and other parts of the body. 30. Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of ‘future loss of income’ which does not call for any interference. 31. The claimant No.2 had remained admitted at G.G.S. Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for about one month. As such, it must have taken at least 3 months for the injuries to heal as grievous injuries were suffered by her in an accident. 32. During the aforesaid period of 3 months, claimant No.2 must have been spent some amount on nutritious diet, in engaging an attendant and on transportation. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -14- compensation of Rs.12,500/- under the heads ‘special diet’, ‘engaging attendant’ and ‘transportation charges’. 33. Resultantly, the compensation awarded to the claimant No.2 is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation assessed by this Court (₹) 1. Expenses incurred on treatment 20,000 2. Pain and sufferings 20,000 3. Future loss of income 15,000 4. Special diet, attendant and transportation charges 12,500 Total 67,500 Interest 9% 34. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant No.1 is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.2,58,440/- (Rs.3,03,440/- – Rs.45,000/-), which is rounded off to Rs.2,58,500/- and claimant No.2 is held entitled to enhanced compensation Rs.47,500/- (Rs.67,500/- - 20,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 10.04.2000, till realization. 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4481-2002 (O&M) -15- comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 36. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 17.07.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.20 16:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document