-1- 267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1085-2003 Date of Decision: 21.07.2026 DEEPAK SHARMA ...Appellant Versus RAM RATTAN AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. Mohammad Yousaf, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vijay Kumar Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3 (Through VC). PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by injured-appellant- claimant-Deepak Sharma, who got injured in motor vehicular accident that took place on 10.03.1998 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving truck bearing registration No. HP-18-4885 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being aggrieved by the insufficient compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- awarded vide impugned award dated 20.11.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’). 2. Since in present appeal the only issue raised by appellants- claimants is as regards to quantum of compensation and no appeal or cross objection have been preferred by any of the respondents, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1085-2003 -2- 3. In the present case, the learned Tribunal had awarded the following compensation: Medical treatment, special diet and attendant charges Rs.33,000/- Expenses on medical expenditure, loss of income Rs.70,000/- Future treatment Rs.19,000/- Loss of amenities, loss of damages, loss of expectation of life Rs.48,000/- Pain and Sufferings Rs.20,000/- Total compensation awarded Rs.1,90,000/- 4. In order to prove nature of injuries, nature of treatment, period of treatment, extent of permanent disability and loss suffered on account of treatment due to loss of earning capacity and under non-pecuniary heads appellant-claimant had duly examined treating doctor Dr. Aditya Aggarwal as AW7. AW7 duly proved that appellant-claimant had suffered multiple injuries in the accident dated 10.03.1998 and was brought to PGI, Chandigarh in the injured condition having as many as five fractures i.e. fracture of both fore arms right side, fracture dislocation right elbow joint, fracture shaft of femur right side, fracture acetabulum right side and fracture iliac crest right side and was discharged from hospital after one month on 11.04.1998. However, he was admitted in the hospital on various occasions for undergoing surgeries noted above. He has further stated that appellant- claimant had undergone surgery on as many as seven occasions i.e. on 07.04.1998, 31.04.1998, 05.06.1998, 28.06.1998, 07.07.1998, 11.09.1998 and 28.05.1999. Appellant-claimant had also visited orthopedic department as outdoor patient for follow-up treatment. From the evidence of AW7 and documents Ex.A5 to Ex.A10, treatment records i.e. bed ticket, OPD Card etc. it is clearly made out that appellant-claimant had suffered multiple CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1085-2003 -3- injuries including multiple fractures for which he had undergone surgeries on seven occasions, remained admitted for more than two months on different occasions and had suffered permanent disability. From the evidence of AW7 it is further made out that appellant-claimant had remained under active treatment for at least one year from the date of accident i.e. 10.03.1998. 5. Appellant-claimant had claimed that he had spent more than Rs.4,50,000/- to 5,00,000/- on his treatment, however, he could only prove medicine bills to the extent of Rs.7,650/- by placing bills as Ex.A15 to Ex.A39 on record. All the bills were taken into consideration and apart from said bills learned Tribunal has also awarded compensation of Rs.33,000/- i.e. Rs.7,650/- towards medicine expenses, special diet, attendant charges etc. Learned Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that appellant-claimant had visited hospital on several occasions and, therefore, must have spent some amount on transportation also. Therefore, compensation of Rs.33,000/- awarded under these heads is enhanced to Rs.45,000/- to cover up medical treatment, special diet, attendant charges, transportation etc. 6. Learned counsel for appellant-claimant has placed reliance upon Mark 10 to Mark 141 to assert that learned Tribunal had wrongly not considered these bills while granting compensation for medical expenses. On consideration, I do not find any error in the approach of learned Tribunal. The standard of proof i.e. preponderance of probability does not mean that no evidence is brought before the Court. No doubt motor accident claims are to be determined by the Court keeping in view the fact that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation. The standard of proof has been lowered CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1085-2003 -4- but has not been given a go-by. Original bills have not been produced on record by appellant-claimant and only photocopy of bills have been produced. Neither the author or person issuing said bills has been proved, nor any prescription has been shown, justifying incurring of expenses on the medicines stated in Mark 10 to Mark 141. 7. A claimant seeking compensation is bound to at least place on record original bills for consideration of the Court and in case original bills are not placed, then no reliance upon photocopies can be made merely keeping sympathetic view in favour of the claimant. The onus to prove the case is always upon the claimant which he is bound to discharge and only if it is discharged, then only sympathetic view can be taken. However, sympathy of Court would not be available to a claimant who has failed to do his duty. Therefore, no error in the approach of learned Tribunal can be found. 8. Learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.70,000/- for seven operations and has also granted pain and sufferings to the extent of Rs.20,000/-. It ought to have been under the head of pain and sufferings and accordingly, same is consolidated and enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. As noticed above, appellant-claimant had remained admitted on various occasions from 10.0.1998 onwards and had undergone last operation in the year 1999 which goes to show that appellant-claimant remained under active treatment and could not have earned his livelihood for the said period. Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to loss of income during treatment i.e. Rs.40,200/ (Rs.3,350 x 12). 9. In order to prove permanent disability on account of injuries CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1085-2003 -5- suffered by appellant-claimant, he had examined Dr. Vijay Gohi as AW5 being a member of Disability Board constituted by Director, PGI, Chandigarh, who had issued disability certificate (Ex.A4) certifying permanent disability to the extent of 48%. Learned Tribunal has granted Rs.1,000/- for 1% disability and has granted loss of expectancy of life, loss of amenities, loss of damages to the extent of Rs.48,000/-. Keeping in view nature of injuries, nature of treatment, period of hospitalization and extent of permanent disability, an amount of Rs.48,000/- for loss towards future amenities of life as well as future prospects is required to be enhanced and accordingly, is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. 10. No interference is warranted for further enhancement of compensation granted for future treatment in absence of any specific need for future treatment and estimated expenses. The same is accordingly upheld. 11. While granting compensation under various heads, learned Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head ‘loss of earnings’ despite the fact that appellant-claimant had suffered permanent injuries to the extent of 48%. It was concluded that since appellant-claimant who was working with Surindera Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd, Rajpura, continued to work therein and was getting same salary as proved by AW12, therefore, appellant-claimant had not suffered any loss of earning capacity. However, the conclusion drawn by learned Tribunal cannot be accepted in totality. No doubt if a person is continuing in previous job without loss of job, then he can be treated to have suffered lesser functional disability, than permanent disability, but it cannot be held that he had not suffered loss of earning CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1085-2003 -6- capacity. On account of restricted physical movement there is always a threat for loss of job, especially in private institutions, therefore, in the present case also, functional disability resulting in loss of earning capacity, keeping in view nature and extent of permanent disability as well as the fact that appellant-claimant continued to work in previous job needs to be ascertained. 12. Keeping in view the above facts, functional disability in the present case is determined as 30%. Since appellant-claimant was 36 years old, therefore, for determining loss of earning capacity 40% towards future prospects needs to be added to his income which is stated to be Rs.3,350/- at the time of accident. Multiplier of ‘15’ shall be applicable in the present case and accordingly, after taking functional disability to the extent of 30%, compensation for loss of earning capacity is determined. 13. Accordingly, re-worked compensation passed in appeal is as under : - Income Rs.3,350 (as awarded by learned Tribunal) Rs.3,350/- Future prospects 40% (3350 + 1340) Rs.4,690/- Functional disability 30% of Rs.4,690/- Rs.1,407/- Multiplier 15 15 Loss of earning capacity Rs.1,407 x 12 x 15 Rs.2,53,260/- Medical expenses, transportation, special diet, attendant charges Rs.33,000/- (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.45,000/- Loss of amenities of life and loss of future prospects Rs.48,000/- (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs. 1,00,000/- Pain and sufferings Rs. 20,000/- (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs. 1,00,000/- CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1085-2003 -7- Compensation for future medical expenses Rs.19,000 (awarded by learned Tribunal) Rs.19,000/- Loss of income during treatment Rs.3,350 x 12 Rs.40,200/- Compensation awarded by Tribunal Rs. 1,90,000/- Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.5,57,460/- Enhancement of compensation Rs.5,57,460/- (as awarded in appeal) – Rs.1,90,000/- (as awarded by Tribunal) Rs.3,67,460/- 14. Appellant-claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation along with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of entire amount. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 15. Appeal is allowed in above terms. 16. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 21.07.2026 JUDGE chiranjeev Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No CHIRANJEEV SINGH 2026.07.24 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document