FAO-4469-2002 -1- 237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4469-2002 Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 SURINDER PAL ALIAS SURINDER KUMAR ......... APPELLANT VERSUS RANJIT SINGH ETC. .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Shakti Mehta, Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Respondents No.1 and 5 ex parte before the Tribunal. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.4-Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session. 2. In the present case, respondents No.1/driver and 5 are already proceeded against ex parte before the Tribunal and the respondents i.e. driver, owners and insurer of offending Tata Sumo bearing No.DL-4CE-1135 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 owners (respondents No.2 and 3) and issuance of notice to above said respondents stands dispensed with. 3. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 21.12.2001 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -2- passed by MACT, Ambala (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT Case No.69 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) vide which a sum of Rs.2,56,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant 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 Tata Sumo bearing No.DL- 4CE-1135 (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 the accident dated 28.3.1997 resulting into the injuries to the claimant took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No.DL-4CE-1135? OPP 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation, on account of his injuries, if so, what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid driving licence and if so its effect? OPR 4. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable as alleged? OPR-3 5. 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.2,56,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him, VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -3- payable by all respondents jointly and severally. However, it has been ordered that first charge shall be on the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants. 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. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -4- 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 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. 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, VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -5- transportation, nourishing food and miscellaneous expenditure. (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, he had suffered grievous injuries in the accident and he was operated upon. He has become permanently disabled. He used to run a karyana/grocery store and earn Rs.8,000- 9,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on file awarded him a total compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- under following heads:- VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -6- Heads 1. General damages (keeping in view the nature of the injuries and the disability as it will effect the claimant throughout etc. in discharge of his duties and other routine life as his right leg has been fractured and he will face difficulty in carrying weight, walking etc. Rs.1,30,000/- 2. Medical treatment (doctor fees, medical bills etc.) Rs.25,000/- 3. Balanced diet & transportation Rs.25,000/- 4. Loss of income Rs.36,000/- 5. For pain and sufferings Rs.25,000/- 6. Loss of happiness Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.2,56,000/- 14. However, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. In the present case, claimant had suffered multiple injuries including fractures right femur, both bones right leg and fracture of lower and right radius. He has also suffered 40% permanent disability and shortening of lower limb by 4 inches. 15. To prove his injuries, claimant has examined PW1 Dr. Mahavir Goel, who deposed that he had treated the patient when he was admitted in his hospital after the accident. The patient had suffered comminuted fracture of right femur with fractures of both bones right leg with fracture of lower and right radius. 16. PW4 Dr. K.K. Gandhotra was one of the Member of the Board who assessed his disability and he deposed that claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 40% and he tendered the disability certificate Ex.P5, with the reasoning that he was an old operated case of fracture right tibia (rush pains) with shortening of right VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -7- lower limb by 4 inches with partial restriction of movement of right hip and right knee joints. 17. As such, it is established that claimant had suffered multiple fractures and he was operated upon for the said injuries. 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.35,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’. 18. Taking his disability to be 40%, Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- 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 31-32 years of age at the time of accident and running a karyana store and he will have to remain with this disability throughout his life which 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. 19. Next question to be decided is as to what was the income of the claimant. As per version of claimant, he was running a karyana/grocery store and used to earn Rs.8000-9,000/- per month but no cogent and convincing evidence has been led to prove this fact and Tribunal has assessed his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/- per month. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -8- 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 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. 20. The accident had taken place on 28.03.1997 and during those days, he must have been earning at least Rs.2,500/- per month. Accordingly, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month as some amount of guesswork has to be applied in assessing the monthly income. The Tribunal has held the age of the claimant to be 31- 32 years of age at the time of accident and as such, 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.3,500/- per month (Rs.2,500/- + Rs.1,000/-). VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -9- 21. Claimant has suffered disability to the extent of 40% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1,400/- (Rs.3,500/- X 40%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.16,800/- per annum (Rs.1,400 X 12). 22. Claimant was 31-32 years of age at the time of accident and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 16 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.2,68,800/- (Rs.16,800/- X 16) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to disability. 23. It must have taken at least 4 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.10,000/- (Rs.2,500/- X 4) on account of ‘loss of income during the period of treatment’. During this period of 4 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.15,000/- under these heads. 24. The claimant has suffered 40% permanent disability and there is shortening of right lower limb by 4 inches with partial restrictions of movement of right hip and right knee joints and the claimant will thus not be able to walk and run and this disability will remain throughout his life. Accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- on account of ‘loss of amenities’. 25. The Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the ‘medical expenses incurred on the treatment’ and no enhancement in the same is thus called for. VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -10- 26. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation Awar- ded by this Court (₹) 1. Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.2,68,800/- 2. Loss of income for a period of 4 months during treatment Rs.10,000/- 3. Attendant charges, transportation & special diet Rs.15,000/- 4. Pain and sufferings Rs.35,000/- 5. Medical Expenses Rs.25,000/- 6. Loss of amenities Rs.35,000/- Total Compensation Rs.3,88,800/- (rounded off to Rs.3,89,000/-) Interest 9% per annum 27. 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.1,33,000/- (Rs.3,89,000/- - Rs.2,56,000/-) 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 on the same terms as has been ordered by the Tribunal. 28. 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 VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.24 16:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4469-2002 -11- 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. 29. 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