-1- 211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-2004-2003 Date of Decision: 17.07.2026 JAGIR SINGH ...Appellant Versus HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Devyansh, Advocate for Mr. Nischal Chetanya Manchanda, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.4. PARMOD GOYAL, J. (ORAL) Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant who had suffered injuries in accident dated 28.07.2000 on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent-driver while driving motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-02-C-3900 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’), being aggrieved by the award of insufficient compensation of Rs.55,000/-awarded vide impugned award dated 21.02.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (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- RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.20 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2004-2003 -2- objection has been preferred by any of the respondents, therefore, the detailed facts as regards to manner of accident are not being noticed herein for the sake of brevity. 3. Learned counsel for injured appellant/claimant had sought enhancement in compensation on the following grounds that : • Learned Tribunal had erred in not granting compensation on the basis of functional disability (as permanent disability is 15%) as per income of injured after taking in account future prospects & multiplier (considering age of injured to be 60 years). Award of compensation amounting to Rs.55,000/- is insufficient and not in accordance with entitlement of injured appellant/claimant; • Compensation for loss of future prospects and future amenities, loss of income during treatment and for future medical expenses has not been granted to which appellant-claimant is entitled to; • Enhancement of compensation for medical expenses and other expenses, and pain and sufferings being insufficient in view of nature of injuries, nature of treatment and period of hospitalisation, was sought. 4. It was the case of injured injured appellant/claimant that in the accident dated 28.07.2000, he had suffered multiple injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent-driver. To prove nature of injuries, treatment, period of hospitalization as well as permanent disability suffered on account of accident, injured appellant/claimant had examined Dr. C.R. Khatri as PW2 and Dr. Hamanshu Anand as PW4. Reliance was also placed upon disability certificate (Ex.P2), MLR (Ex.P3) and medical bills (Ex.P4 to P28). The treating Dr. Hamanshu RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.20 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2004-2003 -3- Anand (PW4) had duly stated that injured appellant/claimant was admitted in the hospital on 28.07.2000, operated on 08.08.2000 and was discharged on 04.09.2000. The hospital had charged an amount of Rs.16,490/- for the treatment rendered to the injured appellant/claimant. He had also stated that apart from multiple injuries, injured appellant/claimant had also suffered multiple fractures and head injury i.e. :- 1. Comminuted fracture both bone left leg with 4” x 2” lacerated wound shin, with bone fragments producing out. 2. Comminuted fracture head of radious left elbow. 3. ½” x 1” lacerated wound on left side tempero parietal region head injury. 4. Fracture neck mendible left side. He further asserted that vide Ex.P-5 injured appellant/claimant had undergone follow up treatment and was admitted again on 27.09.2000 and was discharged on the same date. 5. From the evidence of PW4, learned Tribunal had rightly concluded that injured appellant/claimant had suffered multiple fractures on account of accident dated 28.07.2000, had remained admitted on two occasions and was operated upon for the injuries suffered by him. Injured appellant/claimant had also succeeded in proving that he had spent considerable amount on his treatment by producing medical bills (Ex.P4 to P28) amounting to Rs.16,490/-. However, learned Tribunal had granted a lumpsum amount of Rs.55,000/- which ought to have been awarded under different heads. 6. To prove that injured appellant/claimant had suffered permanent disability on account of injuries suffered by him, he had examined Dr. C.R. Khatri as PW2 who had duly proved disability certificate RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.20 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2004-2003 -4- issued by him along with other members of Board vide Ex.P2. From the perusal of evidence of PW2 as well as disability certificate Ex.P2, it is clearly made out that injured appellant/claimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15% keeping in view the fact that injured appellant/claimant has not led any evidence about his income and vocation and he is considered to be a casual/unskilled worker and his income is taken as Rs.2,000/- per month equivalent to minimum wages payable to unskilled workers at the time of accident. 7. There is no dispute that injured appellant/claimant was 60 years old at the time of accident as is made out from the claim petition which was filed within three months of accident. Since injured appellant/claimant was 60 years old, he is entitled to future prospects to the extent of 10% and multiplier of ‘9’ has to be applied. 8. The contention raised on behalf of learned counsel for insurance company that since injured appellant/claimant is aged 60 years old, therefore, future prospects be not taken, is liable to be rejected as it is only in case when injured appellant/claimant is more than 60 years old, then no future prospects are to be added. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation and the benefit shall always go to the claimant instead of insurance company, especially when no material was placed on record by insurance company to show that claimant was more than 60 years old. 9. Accordingly, injured appellant/claimant is held entitled to Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards medical expenses, special diet, transportation expenses, attendant charges etc. From the fact that injured appellant/claimant had suffered multiple fractures and had undergone surgery and remained admitted for a considerable time, it is also established RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.20 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2004-2003 -5- that injured appellant/claimant must have undergone immense pain and sufferings, accordingly, a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferings. In view of multiple fractures it is also made out that injured appellant/claimant must have remained out of job/work for at least six months during his treatment, accordingly, he is entitled to compensation for loss of income during treatment to the extent of (Rs.2,000/- X 6) = Rs.12,000/-. Since injured appellant/claimant had suffered loss of future amenities and future prospects of life on account of permanent disability, therefore, he is entitled to compensation under these heads which is quantified as Rs.75,000/-. 10. Accordingly, reworked compensation is as under :- Income Rs.2,000/- per month Rs.2,000/- per month Future Prospects 10% (2000+200) Rs.2,200/- Permanent disability 15% of Rs.2,200/- Rs.330/- Multiplier 9 Total loss of earning capacity Rs.330 x 12 x 9 Rs.35,640/- Medical expenses, special diet, transportation, attendant charges etc. Rs.30,000/- Compensation for pain and sufferings Rs.75,000/- Compensation for loss of future amenities and future aspects Rs.75,000/- Loss of income during treatment Rs.2,000 x 6 Rs.12,000/- Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.55,000/- Total Compensation awarded in appeal Rs.2,27,640/- RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.20 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2004-2003 -6- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.2,27,640/- (awarded in appeal) – Rs.55,000/- (awarded by the Tribunal) Rs.1,72,640/- 11. Appellant-claimant is, therefore, held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,72,640/- along with 7.5% interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of petition till realization. Apportionment and liability to pay compensation shall be as per award. 12. Appeal is allowed accordingly. 13. Pending application(s), if any, is/are disposed of accordingly. (PARMOD GOYAL) 17.07.2026 JUDGE Ravinder Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No RAVINDER DHANIA 2026.07.20 09:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document