!" ! #### !$%&!&'()(*+ , , -.$*/$*0 11&22$*% 3) $4(05/$*$*0%/&.) &)1*0&*%) %&*0&.(*6/ 11&22$*% 3) $4(05/$*$*0%/&.) &)1*0&*%) + 7 8"3 !" # $ %&'&$ ()&' * ++++ "$)/9(.(*6/$%/.:.$2 1. These appeals i.e. FAO Nos.4100 and 4096 of 2003 have been instituted by the claimants against the Award dated 31.8.2001 passed by MACT, RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Panchkula (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Cases No.14 and 13 of 1997 in the petitions under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, `Act’) vide which sums of Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.35,000/- have been awarded as compensation to Puran Chand and Atender Singh -claimants/appellants respectively along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by them in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle No.PJP-8976 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), which was insured with respondent- Insurance Company 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of Truck No.PJP-8976 by its driver respondent No.1 resulting into injuries to the claimants Puran Chand and Atender Singh, as alleged?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation, the claimants are entitled to and from whom?OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as alleged?OPR3. 4. Whether the insurance company is not liable to make the payment of the amount of the preliminary objections taken by it in its written statement?OPR3. 5. Relief. RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- and Rs.35,000/- have been awarded as compensation to Puran Chand and Atender Singh -claimants/appellants along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeals in hand have been preferred by claimants. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeals 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 in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, who was driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent – Insurance Company. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents No.1 and 2, 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 appellants 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 compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the compensation awarded vide impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced. RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents 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. # 41&*)$%(* (* ;-.$*/$*03)$4(05/$*$*0%/&.)<+ 9. Stand of claimant- Puran Chand while appearing as PW1 is that he had suffered multiple fractures in his right leg. He remained admitted in PGI, Chandigarh for three months and had undergone nine surgeries and claimed to have spent Rs.2 / 2½ lakhs on his treatment. As per his version, his leg has been shortened by three inches and he also remained on leave for twelve months and thus suffered loss of income. 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 RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document = 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 (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 RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 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. To prove his injuries, claimant has examined PW4- Dr. Prabirjash who deposed that patient – Puran Chand was admitted in PGI on 7.9.1996. He had suffered compound fracture group III (c) both bones fractures of right leg with segmental loss of tibial bone. There was extensive crush injury involving loss of skin, muscles, bone and vascular tissues. Surgical reconstruction of the right leg was done. The patient was firstly operated upon on 9.9.1996 and external fixators were applied. The muscles of the anterior and posterior parts of the right leg were debrided. Grafting was also done over the raw area and subsequently the angiography was done which showed the absence of anterior tibial artery. The patient was again operated upon on 25.10.1996 for reconstruction of artero-venus loop. On 1.11.1996, he was again operated upon for free muscle transfer for the right leg reconstruction. During this operation, muscle was removed from the left back of the patient and was transferred to the right leg. On 8.2.1997, debridement and ilizarov ring fixator was applied with a view to lengthening the right leg bone. On 30.3.1997, distal corticotomy and freshning of bone ends was done. On 7.12.1997, these fixators were removed. The patient was again admitted on 7.9.1996 and was discharged on 18.11.1996. Under the department of orthopaedics, he was again admitted on 7.2.1997 and was discharged on 12.3.1997 and thereafter, he continued to visit PGI for follow up treatment. He further deposed that patient has not recovered fully and he needs support to walk. There RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document > is shortening of bone resulting in the shortening of leg and he would have slight permanent limping and he tendered documents Ex.P1 to E.P156. 13. Dr. Rajinder Maan, private practitioner deposed that claimant has remained under treatment with him as outdoor patient from 17.4.1999 to 21.9.1999 and he has suffered shortening of right lower leg by four inches and is having 60% permanent disability. 14. Learned Tribunal held that claimant has suffered crush injury on his right leg and has undergone a number of surgeries as stated by PW4- Dr. Prabirjash and he also remained admitted in PGI for a long period. Claimant was serving as a Constable in Haryana Police but he has not been able to prove any loss of salary. From the bills produced on file, it is proved that he has spent Rs.40,000/- on his treatment. The Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.55,000/- for expenses incurred on treatment, expenses on transportation and for attendant charges. However, it has come in evidence that numerous surgeries were performed and claimant remained under treatment for around three years and in view of severity of injuries, it must have taken at least three years for the injuries to heal, during which period claimant must have spent huge amount on transportation, on special diet and in engaging an attendant. Accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.54,000/- for engaging an attendant for a period of three years. He is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the expenses incurred on transportation and Rs.25,000/- for nutritious diet. RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document , 15. The Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.40,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that patients or their attendants do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guess work has to be applied in assessing the expenses incurred on treatment. Huge amount must have also been spent on physiotherapy and accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the expenses incurred on the treatment as well as physiotherapy. 16. Only a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been awarded for pain and sufferings but Tribunal lost sight of the fact that injuries suffered by the claimant were of greater magnitude and he was operated upon nine times and remained under treatment for around three years. Therefore, taking into consideration the long period of treatment, severity of injuries and several surgical interventions, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for pain and sufferings. 17. Claimant has not got his disability assessed from a Medical Board but Dr. Rajinder Mann has stated that he has suffered shortening of leg by four inches and has suffered 60% permanent disability. PW4- Dr. Prabirjash has also stated that there is shortening of leg and claimant will limp while walking. Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards disability which in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of nature of injuries is enhanced to Rs.1 lakh for disability. 18. The claimant has suffered 60% of disability on account of shortening of leg by four inches and he was operated upon several times which will impact RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document his day to day activities. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life. 19. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant- Puran Chand is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Assessed by this Court (₹) 1. For engaging an attendant, on transportation and on nutritious diet Rs.89,000/- (Rs.54,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) 2. Expenses incurred on treatment as well as on physiotherapy Rs.60,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 4. For disability Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Loss of Amenities Rs.30,000/- Total Amount Interest 9% !, As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of -.,,,/ 0*!-,,,/ *1,,,/ 2 along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 31.1.1997, till realization, which shall be paybale by respondents jointly and severally. # 41&*)$%(* (* “Atender Singh Vs. Hamid Khan and others”:- 21. Stand of claimant- Atender, while appearing as PW6 is that he had suffered multiple injuries including injuries on his fingers of right hand, collar RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document bone, left shoulder, lips and both bones of right arm. He remained admitted in PGI for three weeks and claimed to have spent Rs.1,80,000/- on his treatment. As per him, he has become permanently disabled. PW8 – Dr. Aditya Aggarwal deposed that claimant was admitted in PGI on 6.9.1996 with head injury and fracture of both bones of right fore-arm, fractures of proximal phalanx, metacarpal and fracture of clavicle. He was operated upon on 8.9.1996 and discharged on 20.9.1996 and he tendered the bills as Ex.P164 to Ex.P226. As such, the claimant is proved to have suffered four fractures i.e. fractures in both bones of right fore- arm, fracture of proximal phalanx and metacarpal and fracture of clavicle and he was operated upon. Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of pain and sufferings which is grossly inadequate. Therefore, taking into consideration the severity of injuries, number of fractures and surgical intervention, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for pain and sufferings. 22. Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses and transportation as per bills produced on file which does not call for any interference. However, no amount has been awarded for engaging an attendant and for the expenses incurred on nutritious diet. It must have taken at least three months for the injuries to heal and during this period, he must have spent some amount in engaging an attendant and on special diet and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for engaging an attendant and Rs.5,000/- for special diet. RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 23. As per version of PW7 – Dr. Ravinder Arora, claimant has suffered disability but his testimony was ignored as he was examined when respondents were ex parte and after the ex parte proceedings were set aside, PW7 Dr. Ravinder was not produced. As such, statement of PW7 cannot be relied upon. 24. The claimant is proved to have suffered four fractures i.e. fractures in both bones of right fore-arm, fracture of proximal phalanx and metacarpal and fracture of clavicle and he was operated upon which would impact his day to day activities. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- on ac- count of loss of amenities of life i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life. 25. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant- Atender Singh s assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Assessed by this Court (₹) 1. Pain and sufferings Rs.30,000/- 2. Medical Expenses and Transportation Rs.20,000/- 3. For engaging an attendant, on special diet and transportation Rs.10,000/- 6. Loss of Amenities Rs.10,000/- Total Interest 9% !3 As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly allowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of *1,,,/ 04,,,,/ *1,,,/ 2 along with interest @ 9% per annum, RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 14.02.1997, till realization, payable by respondents jointly and severally. 27. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of this judgment to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of direction 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. 28. Appeals in hand as well as pending applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. 29. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. "$)/9(.(*6/$%/. -06& -6-)% ,: .&*- 5&)'/ 6/ 5 6/ RENU 2026.08.21 11:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document