IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5139-2003 Lakhmi Chand (since deceased) thr LRs . . . . Appellant Vs. Mewa Singh and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 16.03.2026 Pronounced on: 17.03.2026 Pronounced fully/opera7ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. R.S. Longia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate and Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent No.3- Insurance Company. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensa*on awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, vide award dated 10.09.2003. 2. A perusal of the record would reveal that in a motor vehicular acci- dent, which occurred on 05.06.1999, claimant Lakhmi Chand sustained mul*ple injuries due to rash and negligent driving of truck bearing registra*on No. PB- 12C-1471. Immediately a6er the accident, he was shi6ed from the spot to the Government Hospital, Guhla and therea6er, referred to PGI, Chandigarh for fur- ther treatment. The claimant therea6er filed a pe**on under the Motor Vehi- cles Act seeking compensa*on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offend- ing vehicle. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5139-2003 3. Despite service, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the proceedings before the Tribunal and were proceeded against ex parte. The insurance company alone contested the claim pe**on, inter alia on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effec*ve driving licence at the *me of the accident. 4. Upon apprecia*on of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. PB-12C-1471 by respondent No.1 Mewa Singh. The Tribunal further recorded a finding that the driving licence of respondent No.1 was fake. Consequently, the Tribunal assessed the compensa*on at ₹1,25,000/- and held the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the same along with interest, while gran*ng recovery rights to the insurance company against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. It may also be no*ced that the owner of the offending vehicle had filed a separate appeal bearing FAO No.1613 of 2007 challenging the grant of re- covery rights to the insurer. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 07.08.2009. Thus, the findings regarding liability have already aCained finality. 6. The present appeal filed by the claimant is confined only to the ques*on of quantum of compensa*on. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the medical evidence on record. It is submiCed that as per the tes*mony of PW-1 Dr. K.K. Mukherjee, the claimant had suffered severe head injury with intracranial bleeding and his disability was assessed as 100% impairment in rela*on to the whole body. According to the learned counsel, considering the nature of injuries and disability suffered by the claimant, the Tri- bunal ought to have assessed compensa*on for loss of future earning capacity by applying the mul*plier method. It is argued that the compensa*on of ₹1,25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is wholly inadequate. Page 2 of 5 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5139-2003 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that the medical evidence does not conclusively establish permanent disability of the claimant. It is pointed out that in his cross-examina*on, PW-1 Dr. K.K. Mukherjee himself admiCed that the disability could be either tempo- rary or permanent. It is further argued that the claimant himself appeared in the witness box as PW-3 and deposed in support of his case, which indicates that he was not suffering from such severe neurological disability as claimed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the par*es and perused the record, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not correctly assessed the compen- sa*on payable to the claimant. 10. The medical evidence shows that the claimant had sustained a se- vere head injury with intracranial bleeding and was treated at PGI, Chandigarh. PW-1 Dr. K.K. Mukherjee assessed the impairment of the claimant as 100% in re- la*on to the whole body. It is true that in cross-examina*on, the witness stated that he could not defini*vely state, whether the disability was temporary or per- manent. However, such an answer by the doctor does not completely dilute the seriousness of the injuries proved on record. 11. In cases involving head injuries, par*cularly those affec*ng neuro- logical func*oning, the extent of disability cannot always be measured with mathema*cal precision. The Courts are required to assess func*onal disability, i.e. the impact of the injuries on the earning capacity of the injured person. Even where the medical evidence does not conclusively establish permanent disability in strict medical terms, the Court can assess the extent to which the injuries would have impaired the earning capacity of the vic*m. 12. In the present case, the claimant had suffered a serious head in- jury with bleeding inside the brain and had to be referred to a ter*ary medical ins*tu*on. Such injuries, by their very nature, are likely to have las*ng conse- quences affec*ng the normal physical and mental facul*es of a person. There- fore, while the medical evidence may not conclusively establish permanent NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5139-2003 100% disability, it would be reasonable to hold that the claimant suffered sub- stan*al func*onal disability affec*ng his earning capacity. 13. Keeping in view the nature of injuries and the evidence on record, the func*onal disability affec*ng the earning capacity of the claimant can rea- sonably be assessed at 50%. 14. At the *me of the accident, the claimant was 55 years of age. In the absence of documentary proof of income, his income can safely be assessed on the basis of minimum wages prevalent at the relevant *me, which comes to ₹1900/- per month, i.e., ₹1900 × 12 = ₹22,800 per annum 15. Applying 50% func*onal disability, the loss of earning capacity per annum would be: ₹22,800 × 50% = ₹11,400 per annum. Considering the age of the claimant (55 years), the appropriate mul*plier applicable would be 11. Therefore, the loss of future earnings works out to be ₹11,400 × 11 = ₹1,25,400. 16. Apart from the loss of earning capacity, the claimant is also en*- tled to compensa*on under other heads considering the nature of injuries suf- fered. 17. The compensa*on is accordingly reassessed as under:
Head Amount
Loss of future earning capacity ₹1,25,400
Pain and suffering ₹40,000
Medical expenses ₹25,000
Special diet, aCendant & transporta*on ₹20,000
Total ₹2,10,400 18. Since the Tribunal had awarded ₹1,25,000/-, the claimant be- comes en*tled to enhanced compensa*on of ₹85,400/-. Page 4 of 5 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5139-2003 19. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be en*tled to the enhanced amount of ₹85,400/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe**on *ll realiza*on. 20. It is clarified that though the insurance company shall pay the aforesaid amount to the claimant in the first instance, it shall have the right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle, as already granted by the Tribunal. 21. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 17.03.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No Uploaded on.: 17.03.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.03.17 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document