FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 217 FAO-639-2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 SANJIV KUMAR ......... Appellant VERSUS BALWANT SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Phalit Batra, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) for the appellant. Respondents No.1 and 2 proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal. Mr. Arsh Khurana, Advocate for Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for respondent No.3-New India Assurance Company. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session. 2. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 17.09.2001 passed by MACT, Kaithal (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.3 of 1998 in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -2- the part of respondent No.1 while driving TATA Sumo bearing No.DLC3-F-7135 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing Registration No.DLC-3F-7135 on the part of Balwant Singh, respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether Sanjiv Kumar claimant sustained any injury on account of accident. If so whether claimant is entitled to recover any amount by way of compensation and if so to what amount and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether the insured violated any term and condition of insurance policy as alleged and if so to what effect? OPR (Insurance Co.) 4. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- 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. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -3- 7. 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 bearing No.DLC3-F-7135, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed. 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 85% to 90% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability, loss of amenities of life, pain and suffering, loss of income during treatment, medical expenses including expenses in purchasing medicines, hospitalization charges, investigation charges, expenditure on special diet and transportation etc. Learned counsel further argued that adequate compensation has not been awarded under pecuniary and non- pecuniary heads and same is liable to be suitably enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant 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. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -4- 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 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -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. 12. As per version of claimant, he had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. He had suffered fracture of right shoulder and neck besides injuries on other parts of the body. He was treated at Mangal Hospital, Pundri and thereafter at General Hospital, Kaithal, Holy Family Hospital, G.B. Pant Hospital, Delhi, All India Medical Institute, Delhi and Sehgal Nursing Home, Delhi and he spent Rs.2.5 lacs on his treatment. He has also become permanently disabled and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -6- cannot do any work with his right arm. 13. To prove his injuries, claimant has examined PW2 Dr. S.K. Jain, Orthopaedic Surgeon, who deposed that he along with other members of the Board had assessed the disability suffered by the claimant. He deposed that injured was an old case of brachial plexus injury right upper limb and that right upper limb was non-functional and having paralysis and he is disabled to the extent of 85% to 90% and he tendered the disability certificate Ex.P1. During cross-examination, he stated that treatment record of G.P. Pant Hospital and AIIMS, Delhi were shown to the board at the time of his examination and he had also seen the bed head ticket of Civil Hospital, Kaithal. He further stated that EMG test required to arrive at a conclusion that a person was suffering from brachial plexus was conducted at G.P. Pant, Hospital and same was also shown to the board. He admitted that the disability pertains to a particular limb. Claimant also led in evidence bills Ex.P2 to Ex.P6, copy of treatment record of G.P. Pant Hospital Ex.P8 and Ex.P9, certificate issued by G.P. Pant Hospital Ex.P10, treatment record of All India Medical Institute, Delhi Ex.P11 and investigation report of various laboratories as Mark A to O. 14. On the basis of evidence produced on file, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that claimant has suffered brachial plexus injury right upper limb besides other injuries and he was treated in various hospitals. He has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 85% to 90% with respect to his right upper limb. He was 25 years of age and matriculate and awarded him a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- under following heads:- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -7- 1. Compensation on account of expenditure on medical treatment which includes expenses in purchasing medicines, hospitalization charges, investigation charges, expenditure on special diet and transportation etc. Rs.10,000/- 2. Compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of income during the period of treatment Rs.5000/- 3. Compensation on account of future loss of amenities of life and future loss of earning on account of permanent disability to the extent of 85-90% with respondent to particular limb i.e. right upper limb Rs. 35,000/- 15. However, in my considered opinion, the compensation awarded to the claimant is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered fracture in his shoulder and neck besides other injuries and ultimately, he has suffered brachial plexus injury right upper limb which has become non-functional due to paralysis. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a long time to heal. It must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal and taking into consideration the severity of injuries and duration of treatment, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’. 16. The question to be decided is as to what should be taken as the income of the claimant. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2022) 1 SCC 198, Chandra alias Chander alias Chanda Ram and another Vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav, 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -8- 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. In the present case, the claimant was 25 years of age on the date of accident and he was a matriculate. In these circumstances, he cannot be treated merely as an unskilled worker to assess his income and some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied while assessing his monthly income. The accident had taken place in March 1997 and it can be assumed that he must be earning at least Rs.2,000/- per month. Accordingly, the income of claimant is assessed as Rs.2,000/- per month. 17. Since, claimant was 25 years of age on the date of the accident, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of the law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), which brings his income to Rs.2,800/- per month (Rs.2,000/- + Rs.800/-). 18. As per the testimony of PW2 Dr. S.K. Jain, who was member of the Board which assessed the permanent disability of the claimant, he has suffered 85% to 90% permanent disability in relation to his right upper limb, which would certainly diminish his earning capacity and affect the nature of avocation or profession that he may 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -9- law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. Since, claimant has suffered 85% permanent disability, the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.2,380/- (Rs.2,800/- × 85%) and the annual loss of income will come to Rs.28,560/- per annum (Rs.2,380 × 12) and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the multiplier of 18 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.5,14,080/- (Rs.28,560/- × 18) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 19. Learned Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.10,000/- on account of expenses incurred on treatment, hospitalization, investigation, expenses on special diet and transportation, which is grossly inadequate. It must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal. During this period, he would not have been able to do any work. Accordingly, he is held entitled to compensation of Rs.12,000/- (Rs.2,000/- X 6) for ‘loss of income during treatment’. 20. During this period of six months, claimant must have spent huge amount on special diet, in engaging an attendant and on transportation. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.7,500/- for engaging an attendant, Rs.7,500/- for special diet and Rs.7,500/- for transportation. 21. Claimant has led in evidence bills worth Rs.5,200/- regarding expenses incurred on treatment. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that patients or their attendants do not preserve all the bills, including those relating to physiotherapy and allied treatment and some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’. Taking into PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -10 consideration the nature of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’. 22. Claimant was 25 years of age and this disability in his right upper limb is going to remain with him throughout his life. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life. 23. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded to the claimant is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation Assessed by this Court 1 Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- 2 Expenses incurred on treatment Rs.20,000/- 3 Attendant charges Rs.7,500/- 4 Special diet Rs.7,500/- 5 Transportation charges Rs.7,500/- 6 Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.5,14,080/- 7 Loss of income during treatment Rs.12,000/- 8 Loss of amenities in life Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.6,28,580/- 24. Resultantly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,28,580/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,78,580/- (Rs.6,28,580/- – Rs.50,000/-) (rounded off to Rs.5,78,500/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 02.01.1998, till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. 25. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the judgment to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-639-2002 (O&M) -11 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. 26. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 27.08.2026 Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.09.02 19:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document