FAO-4358-2002 -1- 235 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4358-2002 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 BALBIR ......... APPELLANT VERSUS SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. K.S. Malik-I, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. The record of the present case was destroyed in a fire incident in the High Court Registry. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants has placed on record a legible copy of paper book which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the record. 2. In the present case, all the respondents i.e. driver, owners and insurer of offending Tractor No.HR-31-A-6020 have been held liable to pay compensation to the claimants jointly and severally and respondent No.4/Insurance Company is already represented by its counsel and as such, there is no necessity to issue notice to the driver (respondent No.1), owners (respondents No.2 & 3), respondents No.5/driver of three wheeler and respondents No.6/owner of three wheeler and issuance of notice to VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -2- above said respondents stands dispensed with. 3. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 12.06.2002 passed by MACT, Jind (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.43 of 2000 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.67,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving Tractor bearing No.HR-31-A-6020 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondents No.2 and 3, which was insured with respondent No.4. 4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether Balbir Singh petitioner sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not duly licenced driver, if so, its effect? OPR 4. Relief.” 5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 6. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.67,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -3- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 4, jointly and severally. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 8. 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 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle, owned by respondents No.2 and 3 and insured with respondent No.4. 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. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant 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 compensation 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 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. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -4- 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. 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. 12. 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 food and miscellaneous expenditure. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -5- (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. 13. As per version of claimant Balbir Singh while appearing as PW4, he had suffered fracture on his right leg and multiple injuries on various parts of his body. He cannot walk and run properly due to permanent disability. 14. To prove his disability, claimant has examined PW1 Dr. Dhan Kumar, Member of the Board, who assessed the disability of the VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -6- claimant vide disability certificate Ex.P1 and he deposed that claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability due to malunited fracture of shaft femur right side with shortening by 2 inches and there is restriction of movement of right hip and knee joint. Learned Tribunal after going through the evidence on file awarded a compensation of Rs.67,000/- under following heads:- Heads a. Compensation on account of mental shock and pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- b. Compensation on account of medical expenses Rs.5,000/- c. Compensation on account of special diet and transport Rs.2,000/- d. Compensation on account of loss of earning Rs.5,000/- e. Compensation on account of 30% permanent disability, loss of comforts and loss of future enjoyment Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.67,000/- 15. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. In the present case, claimant has suffered fracture in his right leg and he was operated upon. He has also suffered 30% permanent disability and shortening of leg due to malunited fracture of shaft femur right side. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. Therefore, taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -7- 16. Taking his disability to be 30%, Tribunal has awarded claimant a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the disability. However, the mode of assessment of compensation on account of permanent disability is not proper and in accordance with settled principles of law. The claimant was 24 years of age and working as a labourer and he has to remain with this disability throughout his life 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. 17. Next question to be decided is as to what was the income of the claimant. As per version of claimant, he was a labourer and doing the job of farming and used to earn Rs.6000/- per month. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chander alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, decided vide judgment dated 01.10.2021 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -8- income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. As such, some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the monthly income. 18. The accident had taken place on 20.04.2000 and he must have been earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month during those days. Accordingly, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month as some amount of guesswork has to be applied in assessing the monthly income. Since, claimant was 24 years of age on the date of accident, 40% of 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/-). 19. Claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 30% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1,260/- (Rs.4,200/- X 30%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.15,120/- per annum (Rs.1,260 X 12). 20. Claimant was 24 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.2,72,160/- (Rs.15,120/- X 18) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to disability. 21. It must have taken at least 3 months for the injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able to do any work and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.9,000/- (Rs.3,000/- X 3) on account of ‘loss of income during the period of treatment’. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -9- During this period of 3 months, he must have engaged an attendant, spent some amount on transportation and on special diet. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- under these heads. 22. The claimant has suffered fracture on his right leg along with restriction of movement of right hip and knee joint and multiple injuries on various parts of his body. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of ‘loss of amenities’. 23. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the ‘medical expenses incurred on the treatment’ and no enhancement in the same is called for. 24. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation Awarded by this Court (₹) 1. Loss of income due to permanent dis- ability Rs.2,72,160/- 2. Loss of income during treatment for period (3 months) Rs.9,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.5,000/- 4. Attendant charges, transportation & special diet Rs.10,000/- 5. Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- Total Compensation Rs.3,46,160/- (rounded off to Rs.3,46,000/-) Interest 9% per annum VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4358-2002 -10- 25. 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.2,79,000/- (Rs.3,46,000/- - Rs.67,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 16.09.2000, till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 4, jointly and severally. 26. 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. 27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 23.07.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document