FAO-4275-2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 234 FAO-4275-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.07.2026 JOGINDER SINGH .....Appellant Versus GURMEET SINGH AND ORS. .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Ms. Silvi Katoch, Amicus Curiae for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate (Through V.C) for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. The present appeal has been directed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 04.08.2000 passed in MACT Case No.74 of 15.06.1998 decided by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jagadhri (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Sections 166, 140 and 141 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest @ 12% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.09.1997, due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving truck trailor bearing No. HR-29-C-5285 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3 and all the respondents are held liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally. 2. Since liability of all the respondents has been held to be joint RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 2 and several, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, respectively and issuance of notice to them has been dispensed with. 3. The case of claimant is that on 25.09.1997, he was returning from Rajpura to Yamunanagar in his Maruti car bearing No.DIC-2216. When he reached near village Kail on Ambala-Jagadhri road, truck trailor bearing No. HR-29-C-5285 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and hit his car, as a result of which he suffered multiple injuries and the car was also badly damaged. He was taken to Kohli hospital, Jagadhri and thereafter, shifted to Civil Hospital, Jagadhri and on his statement, formal FIR was registered against respondent No.1. By way of present claim petition, claimant sought compensation to the tune of Rs.6.5 lakhs. 4. Upon notice, respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement submitting that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving by the claimant himself, who was coming from the side of Ambala at a high speed whereas respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle at a normal speed when he was going towards Ambala. When they reached near village Kail, claimant applied sudden brakes of his car as a result of which car turned towards trailor and struck against it resulting in the accident. It has been admitted that offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2, which is insured with respondent No.3. Dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 5. Respondent No.3 in its written statement has alleged that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and in case, any such accident had taken place, the same took place solely due to negligence of the car driver. It has been admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 3 but it is further submitted that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license. Remaining contents of the claim petition have been refuted and dismissal of the claim petition was sought. 6. Replication was filed by the claimant controverting the contents of the written statement and from the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck/trailor no. HR-29-C-5285 by respondent No.1? OPP. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation if so how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the respondent No.1 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. If so its effect? OPR-3. 4. Relief.” 7. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence in support of their case. 8. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had taken place due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and fixed the liability of driver of truck to the extent of 2/3 rd and that of the claimant to the extent of 1/3rd. The total compensation assessed was Rs.2,25,000/- and after deducting 1/3 rd, a sum of Rs.1,50,000 was awarded as compensation to the claimant. Under issue No.3, it was held that Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove that driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and this issue was decided against Insurance Company and all the respondents were held liable to pay compensation to the claimant jointly and severally. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 4 9. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been instituted by the claimant. Learned counsel for appellant and respondent No.3 have been heard and material on file has been perused. 10. Learned Amicus Curiae argued that the findings of learned Tribunal on Issue No.1 that claimant had also contributed to the accident is against the facts and evidence on file. The same is rather based on conjectures and surmises and is liable to be reversed. Learned counsel next contended that the testimony of claimant while appearing as PW-1 has been corroborated by PW-2 in all the material particulars with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and manner of accident and their testimony has gone unrebutted as the driver of the offending vehicle has not dared to step into the witness box and to state his case on oath and in these circumstances, there was no reason for the Tribunal to discard their testimony and hold that the claimant had also contributed to the accident and she prayed that the findings on Issue No.1 be reversed. Learned counsel further contended that the adequate compensation has not been assessed under all the pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and the compensation awarded is meagre and is liable to be enhanced and she prayed that adequate compensation be awarded in favour of appellant/claimant. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant had also contributed to the accident and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the claimant as well as respondent No.1 does not call for any interference as the same is well reasoned and justified. Learned counsel further contended that the adequate compensation has been assessed and awarded and there is no scope for further enhancement and he prayed for RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 5 dismissal of the appeal. 12. At the very outset, 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 material available on file i.e the copy of Award and as per discussion of the facts and evidence made by the Tribunal. 13. On issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving, the learned Tribunal held as under:- “8. Claimant Joginder Singh as PW-1 has stated that on 25.9.1997 after completing his work at Rajpura he was coming back to his home i.e. Yamunanagar and when he reached near village Kail on Yamunanagar-Jagadhri road at 600 P.M. at that time a truck-trailor bearing no.HR-290-5285 being driven by Gurmeet Singh respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner and at a very high speed came from the opposite direction and he brought his vehicle on wrong side and struck with his car which was totally damaged and he suffered grievous injuries on parts of the body including his right leg. In his cross-examination he has stated that the place of accident is so wide that two vehicles can easly pass as the width of the road at that place is 50-60 feet and that the truck-trailor was coming on its correct side but he has added that suddenly it came towards his side and sturck against them. In his further cross examination he has also admitted that the truck-trailor was at the speed of 40-45 kilometers per hour and his vehicle struck with the truck-trailor on the driver side. Besides PW-2 Ramesh Kumar has stated that while he was coming on his scooter from Barara to Jagadhri and when he reached near village Kail, a maruti car bearing DIC No.-2216 was going ahead of him driven by Joginder Singh injured at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and a truck trailor bearing No. HR-29C-5285 came from the opposite side at a very high speed and the maruti car had been brought on the Kacha berm of the road by its driver but the driver of the truck trailor brought it on the wrong side of the road and struck with maruti car causing injuries to the car driver. In his cross- examination this witness has stated that at the time of the accident he was about 25-30 feet behind the car and after the accident he reached near the car and the road is a single road but he cannot tell the width of the road. He has added in his further cross-examination that the driver of the truck-trailer helped in pulling the car driver from the car at the spot the and thereafter he went away. 9. The driver of the truck-trailor in question Gurmeet Singh RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 6 respondent No. 1 choose not to appear in the witness box as his own witness and he was not examined even by respondent No. 2 as his witness and therefore, the evidence led by the claimant on the point of negligence goes unrebutted and so the question of negligence needs to be decided on that evidence as it stands. 10. The evidence brought on record mentioned in paragraph No.8 and 9 above, shows that the claimant Joginder Singh has no where stated either in his pleading in the claim petition or in his testimony as PW1 that he was driving his car No.DIC-2216 a the place of accident on his due left hand also side of the road and at normal speed, He has further stated ttat the time of the accident the speed of the truck-trailor No. HR-290-5285 was 40. Kilometers per hour and the width of the road at the place of accident was 50-60 feets. Judged in that background the testimony of his witness namely Ramesh Kumar as PW-2 when he has stated that the truck-trailor was coming at a very high speed and that the car was being driven by the claimant- joginder Singh at a normal speed on due left hand side appears to reflect the proverb witness is active whereas the client is lazy(Mud Susat Gawah Chust) and he has given an exaggerated version actual stand. 11. This position finds confirmation from own admission the claimant-Joginder singh P-1 in his cross-examination when he has clearly stated the his car struck against the truck-trailor in question which also suggested his own fault in the matter of the causing of the accident. This position read with the own pleadings of the claimant Joginder Singh Claim-petition and his own testimony as Pw-1 when he has not stated that his car was being driven at the time of the accident at normal speed or on his due left hand side of the road and his testimony that the speed of the truck trailor was 40-50 kilometers per hour and the width of the road was 50-60 feet and two vehicles can easily pass on that road, obviously shows that the fault in the matter of causing of the accident between the two vehicles coming from the opposite direction is not wholly of Gurmeet Singh driver of the truck-trailor in question, but is partly of the claimant also because had he been not at all negligent and had he been driving his car on his due left hånd side of the road at a normal speed toward his car of the truck-trailor coming at a slow speed of about 40 kilometers per hour could not be that su that the claimant could not avert this accident. 12. There is therefore, no merit in the plea of the learned counsel for the claimant that the accident in question was caused wholly due to the negligence of respondent No.1 driver of the truck trailor in question. 13. In the afore mentioned circumstances of the case it is held that the accident in question resulting into the injuries to the claimant was caused due to rash and negligent drriving of truck-trailor no, HR-290-5285 by its driver-Gurmeet Singh respondent No.1 to the extent of 67% 1.e. 2/3rd and due to the own fault of the claimant to the extent of remaining 33% i.e. 1/3rd. 14. This issue is, therefore, decided accordingly in favour of the RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 7 claimant and against the respondents.” 14. However, the approach of the learned Tribunal while holding the claimant to be rash and negligent manner and contributing to the accident is not well reasoned and same is rather erroneous. Claimant has specifically deposed that he was coming from Ambala and going towards Jagadhri in his car while the offending truck came from the opposite direction at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. He brought the truck towards the wrong side and hit the car resulting in the accident. During his cross-examination, he stated that truck was coming on its correct side but it suddenly came towards his side and struck him and his vehicle struck with the truck on driver’s side. The learned Tribunal misconstrued the statement of the claimant when he stated that his vehicle had struck the truck on driver’s side in coming to the conclusion that claimant was also driving his vehicle rashly and negligently as his car had struck the truck. However, the remaining part of his testimony has been altogether ignored when he categorically stated that the offending vehicle had come to the wrong side and hit his car. Moreover, his version has also been duly corroborated by PW-2 Ramesh Kumar who was following him when he categorically stated that claimant was driving the car at a normal speed and on correct side of the road and the offending vehicle came from the opposite side at a high speed as a result of which the car driver brought his car towards the unmetalled portion/kacha berm of the road but the truck hit the car after coming to the wrong side. This part of the testimony of PW-2 too has been altogether ignored and the Tribunal has of its own made out a case of contributory negligence despite the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle had not stepped into the witness box. In the written statement, respondent No.1 has RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 8 taken a plea that car was coming at a high speed from the opposite direction and car driver applied sudden brakes as a result of which the car of the claimant turned towards his truck and hit it. However, no evidence has been led by respondents to prove this fact and driver has not dared to step into the witness box and to offer himself for cross-examination. It is well settled that if a party does not step into the witness box to state his case on oath and to offer himself for cross-examination, an adverse influence has to be drawn against him to the effect that the case set up by him is not true. In these circumstances, the unrebutted evidence led by the claimant i.e his own testimony while appearing as PW-1 as well as testimony of PW-2 who had witnessed the accident should have been relied upon to come to the conclusion that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1. Finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.1 that claimant had also contributed to the accident while driving his car rashly and negligently is thus not sustainable and same is accordingly reversed. Accordingly, it is held that accident in question had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle and issue No.1 is decided in favour of claimant. ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION 15. Coming to the assessment of compensation, 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 9 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. 16. 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 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 10 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. 17. As per version of claimant, he had suffered multiple injuries and has become permanently disabled and huge amount was spent on his treatment. To prove the injuries, claimant had examined PW-3 Dr. Pardeep Kohli who deposed that on 25.09.1997, claimant was admitted in his hospital and he had suffered multiple fractures on right lower limb. Patient was operated upon and a nail was inserted in the bone of his right thigh and patella was removed and he was discharged from the hospital on 13.10.1997 with a direction to follow up for his treatment as OPD patient. He tendered the bills Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. He also tendered the bills Ex.P-2 to Ex.P-46. He further stated that claimant had also undergone physiotherapy. Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimant had spent Rs.26036/- on his treatment in Kohli Hospital but learned Tribunal ignored the bills issued by private Physiotherapist i.e PW-5 Anjana Sharma Ex.P-48 to Ex.P- 62 but awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the claimant for the expenses incurred on the treatment including the amount spent on physiotherapist. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that patients and their attendants generally do not preserve all the bills as their primary concern is to provide proper treatment to the patient and some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied in assessing the expenses incurred on treatment. Taking into consideration, the severity of injuries, period of treatment and the fact that claimant must have undergone physiotherapy, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment as against Rs.30,000/- assessed by the Tribunal. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 11 18. To prove his income, the claimant has tendered in evidence his income tax return Mark-C for the Assessment Year 1997-98, which shows that his annual income in the said year was Rs.1,27,530/-. He was 44 years of age at the time of accident. PW-4 Dr. Deepan Jain has proved the disability certificate Ex.P-47 and deposed that claimant has suffered 15 per cent permanent disability and Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.1,90,000/- on account of permanent disability, besides Rs.5000/- for loss of earnings. However, the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate and no compensation has been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. 19. Claimant had suffered multiple fractures on right lower limb and he was operated upon and a nail was inserted and patella was removed. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. Taking into consideration the severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. 20. The claimant would not have been able to look after his business for at least four months and he must have thus suffered loss of income and claimant is thus entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of income during the period of treatment. During this period, claimant must have also engaged an attendant, spent some amount on special diet as well as transportation and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under all these heads. 21. As per disability certificate Ex.P-47, claimant has suffered 15% permanent disability in relation to fractures on right lower limb and he was operated upon and a nail was inserted and patella was removed which will certainly diminish his earning capabilities and the avocation or profession he RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 12 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 been 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 income of the claimant as per income tax return was Rs.1,27,530/-. He has suffered 15 per cent permanent disability and this disability is thus certainly going to diminish his earning capability. The total income of the claimant was Rs.1,27,530/- and claimant was 44 years of age and as such, 25 per cent amount has to be added to the said income towards future prospects and after adding the same, the total income comes out to be Rs.1,59,413/- (rounded off to Rs. 1,59,000/-). However, taking into consideration the income tax slabs during that period, he must have paid at least 30 per cent of the amount out of total earning towards income tax and after deducting a sum of Rs.50,000/-, the annual income of the claimant comes out to Rs. Rs.1,09,000/-. 23. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% and the annual loss of income will thus comes out to Rs.16,350/- (Rs.1,09,000/- X 15%). 24. As per the claim petition, claimant was 44 years of age and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the multiplier of 14 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.2,28,900/- (Rs.16,350/- X 14) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 25. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:- RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document FAO-4275-2002 13 Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation assessed by this Court 1. Expenses incurred on treatment Rs.35,000/- 2. Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.2,28,900/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- 4. Attendant charges, special diet and transportation Rs.15,000/- 5. Loss of income during treatment Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.3,18,900/- (rounded off to Rs.3,19,000/-) 26. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.3,19,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.1,69,000/- (Rs.3,19,000/- − Rs.1,50,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 15.06.1998 till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally. 27. 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. 28. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 23.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.24 17:19 I am approving this document