S. No.270 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.1643 of 2003 (O&M) Date of Decision:27.7.2026 Abdul Hamid .....Appellant Vs. Nadim and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Gaurav Tyagi, Advocate for the LRs of appellant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Arsh Khurana, Advocate for the Insurance Company. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant against the Award dated 31.5.2002 passed in MACT Case No.72 of 2000 decided by MACT, Gurgaon (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.7,000/- along with interest @9% per annum has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR.23-A-8295 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3. 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned MACT:- RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1643 of 2003 (O&M) -2- “1. Whether the accident in question took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep made marshal and bara No.HR-23-A 8295 by respondent No.1 as alleged in the petition? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether petitioner sustained injuries on the accident and is entitled for compensation if so from whom and to what amount?OPP 3. Whether respondent no.1 had no valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident?OPR.3 4. Whether respondents No.1 and 2 had contravened the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged in W.S. of respondent no.3?OPR-3 5. Whether petition is bad for non joinder of necessaryparties? OPR-3 6. 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.7,000/- 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 and 2. However, Insurance Company was directed to make the payment but was given aright to recover the same from respondents No.2 as there was violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1643 of 2003 (O&M) -3- 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 the offending vehicle. 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. 7. 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 and the compensation granted vide impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent 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. 9. 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’ RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1643 of 2003 (O&M) -4- 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. As per version of claimant, he had suffered multiple injuries and spent huge amount on his treatment. However, his version was not believed and Tribunal under Issue No.2 held as under:- “Issue No.2.- The fate of this issue was depending on the fate of other issues. Therefore, all other issues were taken for their decision prior to this issue. In view of my findings on issue no.1, I have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner met with an accident while travelling in the offending jeep and due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent no.1. In view of his statement as PW1 it is proved that he suffered injuries on this person in the accident in question. He has not examined any doctor to prove the number and nature of his injuries and duration of his treatment. Therefore, inference which can be drawn that he suffered injuries which cured within a short period and without incurring huge amount on his treatment. Though the RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1643 of 2003 (O&M) -5- petitioner has stated that he spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on his treatment, transportation and special diet and that he took treatment in CHC, Nuh, CHC, Hodal, General Hospital Gurgaon and Khan Badshah Hospital, Delhi. But in the absence of any record of his treatment and statement of doctor, owner or employee of any medical store from whom he allegedly purchased medicines etc. I am of the opinion that his oral statement is not sufficient to prove the quantum of the amount of treatment. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has withheld his medical evidence I am of the opinion that the petitioner incurred only a small amount on his treatment. Therefore, I hereby held that he is entitled only for a sum of Rs.7000/- (Rs.Seven thousand) on account of compensation for his injuries.” As such, the claimant had failed to lead any evidence to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him as well as the expenses incurred on the treatment. No doctor was also examined to prove the injuries and Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- as compensation. However, in view of the trauma of accident suffered by the victim and the fact that he had suffered simple injuries, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation, payable by respondents No.1 and 2. However, Insurance Company shall pay the amount but with a right to recover the same from respondent No.2. 17. 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.3,000/- (Rs.10,000/- - Rs.7,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 and 2. However, Insurance Company RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.1643 of 2003 (O&M) -6- shall pay the same but shall have a right to recover the same from respondent No.2, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 21.9.2000, till realization. 18. 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. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge July 27, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2026.07.29 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh