IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-1572-2003 DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPA . . . . Appellant Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ANOTHER . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 16.02.2026 Pronounced on: 18.02.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. V.K. Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The injured-claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur, vide award dated 07.02.2003. 2. It is not in dispute that on 30.01.2002 the appellant, then aged about 20 years, sustained mul4ple grievous injuries in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of car No. PB-08A-7554. He was ini4ally taken to Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur and therea9er shi9ed to DMC & Hospital, Ludhiana, where he remained admi<ed for a considerable period. The claim pe44on under Sec4on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed against the driver-cum- owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, having held the driver negligent, awarded compensa4on of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest. 3. The grievance of the appellant is confined to quantum. It is contended that the appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% as per the disability cer4ficate proved by AW-1 Dr. Tek Raj, Medical Specialist, VIVEK PAHWA 2026.02.18 18:01 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh FAO-1572-2003 2026:PHHC:025427 Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur. However, considering the nature of injuries i.e., head injury with sequel le9-sided hemiplegia with aphasia and malunited fracture of le9 humerus, the func4onal disability is virtually 100%. It is further submi<ed that the appellant requires a lifelong a<endant and has not been adequately compensated under the heads of loss of future earnings, a<endant charges, loss of ameni4es and marriage prospects. 4. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal has already awarded reasonable compensa4on and no further enhancement is warranted. 5. This Court has carefully examined the evidence on record and the principles governing assessment of compensa4on in injury cases. 6. From the tes4mony of AW-1 Dr. Tek Raj and AW-4 Dr. Parshant Jain, it is evident that the appellant suffered severe head injury with hemorrhagic contusions in the brain, fracture of le9 elbow requiring surgery, and consequent neurological deficit including aphasia. The evidence further establishes that the appellant cannot walk without support, has speech impairment, and requires permanent assistance. The chances of complete recovery were stated to be remote. 7. Though the medical disability has been assessed at 60%, the nature of injuries and their impact on the earning capacity must be independently evaluated. The dis4nc4on between physical disability and func4onal disability has been authorita4vely explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar and another v. Ajay Kumar, 2011 (1) SCC) 343. It has been held that while medical disability may be quan4fied in percentage terms, the func4onal disability for the purpose of compensa4on depends upon the effect of such injury on the earning capacity of the injured. 8. In the present case, the appellant was a young man of 20 years. He has suffered hemiplegia and aphasia. Considering the neurological impairment and dependency on assistance for movement and speech, his capacity to pursue gainful employment stands prac4cally ex4nguished. Therefore, the func4onal disability is assessed at 100%. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.02.18 18:01 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh FAO-1572-2003 2026:PHHC:025427 9. The principles for award of compensa4on under various heads in injury cases have also been elucidated in R.D. Haangadi v. M/s. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551, wherein it has been held that pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages must be separately assessed, and that compensa4on should be fair, reasonable and commensurate with the degree of depriva4on suffered. 10. Coming to the computa4on of income, though the appellant pleaded that he was earning ₹6,000/- per month as a carpenter, no cogent documentary or independent evidence was produced. The accident occurred in January 2002. In absence of proof, his income is reasonably assessed at ₹2,000/- per month on no4onal basis, i.e. ₹24,000/- per annum. 11. In view of the law laid down in Na,onal Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 AIR SC 5157, addi4on of 40% towards future prospects is warranted as the appellant was below 40 years of age. Thus, annual income becomes ₹33,600/-. Applying mul4plier of 18, appropriate for age 20 years as per Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corpora,on and another, 2009 (6) SCC 121 the loss of future earning capacity works out to ₹6,04,800/-. 12. As regards medical expenses, though bills amoun4ng to ₹34,080/- were formally proved, oral evidence indicates substan4al expenditure on treatment, transporta4on and special diet. The Tribunal awarded ₹1,00,000/- under this composite head. Considering the prolonged hospitaliza4on, surgeries, follow-up treatment and overall circumstances, the said amount is maintained. 13. The appellant remained under treatment for several months. Loss of income during treatment for five months is assessed at ₹10,000/-. 14. Given the 100% func4onal disability and requirement of lifelong assistance, a<endant charges are awarded at ₹1,000/- per month. Applying mul4plier of 18, this works out to ₹2,16,000/-. 15. Further, under non-pecuniary heads, compensa4on is warranted for pain and suffering (₹50,000/-), loss of marriage prospects (₹50,000/-), loss of ameni4es of life (₹1,00,000/-), transporta4on (₹25,000/-), special diet (₹25,000/- ) and future medical expenses (₹20,000/-). These amounts are in consonance with VIVEK PAHWA 2026.02.18 18:01 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh FAO-1572-2003 2026:PHHC:025427 the principle that compensa4on should not be token but substan4al, as reiterated by the Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 2020(2) RCR (Civil) 27. 16. Accordingly, the compensa4on is re-assessed as under: Head Amount (₹)  Medical expenses and ancillary charges 1,00,000/-  Pain and suffering 50,000/-  Loss of income during treatment 10,000/-  Loss of future earnings (100% disability) 6,04,800/-  A<endant charges 2,16,000/-  Transporta4on 25,000/-  Special diet 25,000/-  Loss of marriage prospects 50,000/-  Loss of ameni4es 1,00,000/-  Future medical expenses 20,000/- Total compensa;on ₹12,00,800/- 17. Since ₹2,50,000/- has already been awarded by the Tribunal, the enhanced compensa4on comes to ₹9,50,800/-, rounded off to ₹9,50,000/-. 18. The appellant is, therefore, en4tled to enhanced compensa4on of ₹9,50,000/- over and above, what has already been awarded, payable jointly and severally by the respondents along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe44on 4ll realiza4on. 19. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 18.02.2026 JUDGE
 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 18.02.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.02.18 18:01 I agree to specified portions of this document Chandigarh