FAO No.1333 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 FAO No.1333 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2026 Amrit Lal ..… Appellant Versus Satbir Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Vishal Jassal, Advocate (Through V.C) for the appellant. Respondents No.1, 2A and 4 proceeded against ex parte before Tribunal. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. Respondent No.5 has given up before learned Tribunal. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J.(Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by claimant against the Award dated 05.11.2001 passed by MACT, Karnal (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.176/1998 in a petition under Sections 166 and 148 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act”) vide which a sum of Rs.32,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 14.08.1998 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving Tata Sumo bearing No.DL-3CH-3132 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO No.1333 of 2002 2 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the accident in question resulting into injuries to the claimant was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo No. DL-3CH-3132 by its driver respondent No.1 or due to rash and negligent driving of jeep No.HR-23-3297 by respondent No.5 or by rash and negligent driving of both the drivers, if so, to what extent? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled and from whom?OPP. 3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable?OPR 4. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.32,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, 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. 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 had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 3 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. 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. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO No.1333 of 2002 3 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 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 claimant had suffered injuries on his face and his nasal bone was fractured. He also suffered cut on his lip beside injuries on his forehead. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1660/- as compensation for pain and sufferings, special diet and treatment, which is on the lower side and the same be enhanced. Learned counsel further argued that on account of injuries suffered by him, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has also not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellants 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 and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others. 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 RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO No.1333 of 2002 4 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 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). RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO No.1333 of 2002 5 (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. 12. The case of claimant in the pleadings and while appearing as PW-2 is that he had suffered injuries on his face and his nasal bone was fractured. He also suffered cut on his lip beside injuries on his forehead. He was taken to Spring Meadows Hospital, Delhi where he remained admitted for one month and he had spent Rs.50,000/- on his treatment. His right eye has become weak and his face has disfigured on account of the injuries suffered by him. The claimant has led in evidence the treatment record Mark A-8 which shows that he had suffered fractured nasal bone and closed reduction was done. It is thus established that claimant had suffered grievous injuries. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and they take a considerable long time to heal and in view of the severity of injuries suffered by the claimant, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of pain and sufferings. 13. As per version of claimant, he was partner in a photostat shop and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month but his self serving statement cannot be relied upon in this regard in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence. However, the accident had taken place in the year 1998. No cogent and convincing evidence has been led to establish the monthly income of the claimant yet some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO No.1333 of 2002 6 the monthly income. Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra 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 guess work has to be applied while assessing the income and since the accident had taken place in the year 1998, his monthly income is assessed as Rs.3,000/-. 14. It must have taken at least one and a half month for the injuries to heal and during this period, the claimant would not have been able to do any work and would have remained bedridden. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.4,500/- on account of loss of income. 15. During the period of treatment, he must have engaged an attendant, spent some amount on special diet and on transportation and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- under all these heads. 16. No disability has been suffered by the claimant and as such, he is not entitled to any amount of compensation on account of loss of income due to permanent disability. The claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.28,340/- for the expenses incurred on treatment as per bills produced by him and no enhancement in the same is called out. RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document FAO No.1333 of 2002 7 17. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant is assessed as under:- Sr. Compensation Amount 1. Medical expenses (as per bills produced) 28,340/- 2. Pain and sufferings 20,000/- 3. Loss of income during treatment (Rs.3,000 × 1½ months) 4,500/- 4. Special diet, attendant charges and transportation 7,500/- 5. Total Compensation Rs.60,340/- (Rounded to Rs.60,000/-) 18. 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.28,000/- (Rs.60,000/- − Rs.32,000/-) 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. 23.08.1998, till realization. 19. 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. 20. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 27.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Rajeev (rvs) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No RAJEEV PUROHIT 2026.07.28 17:37 I am approving this document