FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -1- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 22.07.2026 1. FAO-897-2004 MADAN LAL ......... Appellant VERSUS KARAMJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Respondents 2. FAO-2220-2004 GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS ......... Appellants VERSUS MADAN LAL ..... Respondent 3. FAO-1467-2004 MUKHTIAR SINGH ......... Appellant VERSUS MADAN LAL ..... Respondent 4. FAO-885-2004 VARINDER KUMAR ......... Appellant VERSUS KARAMJIT SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Respondents 5. FAO-1442-2004 MUKHTIAR SINGH ......... Appellant VERSUS VARINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Respondents PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -2- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 6. FAO-2219-2004 GURPREET SINGH AND OTHERS ......... Appellants VERSUS VARINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. Rishi Kaushal, Advocate for the appellant(s) in FAO-897-2004 and FAO-885-2004. Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant(s) in FAO-2220-2004, FAO-2219-2004, FAO-1467-2004 and FAO-1442-2004 for the respondents in FAO-897-2004 and FAO-885-2004. Services of respondents No.3, 4 and 7 dispensed with. Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.5-Oriental Insurance Company. Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.6-United India Insurance Co. Ltd. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of above noted six appeals, as the same have emanated out of the same accident. FAO-897-2004 and FAO-885-2004 2. These two appeals have been instituted against the Awards dated 14.10.2003 for enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT case No.48 of 12.06.1999 and MACT Case No.20 of 04.06.1999 decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -3- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 vide which a sum of Rs.12,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant- Madan Lal and a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant-Varinder Kumar on account of injuries suffered by them alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petitions till realization. FAO-2220-2004, FAO-1467-2004 FAO-1442-2004, FAO-2219-2004 3. These four appeals have been instituted by the owner and LRs of driver of the offending vehicle against the aforesaid Awards. By way of these appeals, they have challenged the findings of the Tribunal vide which respondents No.1 and 2 namely driver and owner have been directed to satisfy the Awards jointly and severally and the Insurance Company has been granted right to recover the compensation amount from the insured/owner after making payment of the compensation to the claimants. 4. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.48 of 12.06.1999:- “1. Whether Madan Lal sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident on 05.01.1998 near DIG Office, Bachan Singh Road near Diwan Gas Service, Ludhiana on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 Karamjit Singh and respondent No.4 Sanjiv Kumar of Esteem Car No.LD-4-CD-0345 and jeep No.PB-13B-9489? OPP. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so how much and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.3 had already sold the Esteem Car No.DL-4-CD-0345 to M/s. Shakti Spinners Ltd, Rahon Road, Village Bojra, Ludhiana, If so, its effect? OPR. 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties? OPR4. 5. Whether respondent no.1 Karamjit Singh was not holding PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -4- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 a valid and effective driving licence of Jeep No.PB-13B- 9489 at the time of alleged accident? OPR 5. 6. Whether the respondent No.4 Sanjeev Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence of esteem car N0.DL-4-CD-0345 at the time of alleged accident? OPR 6. 7. Relief.” 5. The following issues were framed by learned Tribunal in MACT Case No.20 of 04.06.1999:- “1. Whether Varinder Kumar claimant received injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 Karamjit Singh and respondent No.4 Sanjiv Kumar who caused the accident on 05.01.1998 at about 3.15 P.M. near DIG Office, Bachan Singh Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana? OPA. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPA. 3. Whether respondent No.3 had sold his vehicle Esteem Car No.DL-4-CD-0345 to respondent No.7 before the accident ? OPR. 4. Whether respondent no.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR 5. 5. Whether respondent No.4 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident? OPR 6. 6. Relief.” 6. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 7. After hearing the parties and on going through the material on record, learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1, held that the accident in question had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle No.PB-13B-9489, owned by respondent No.2-Mukhtiar Singh and insured with respondent No.5-Oriental Insurance Company. Under Issue No.5, it was held that driver-Karamjit Singh was not holding a valid and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -5- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 effective driving licence authorizing him to drive a jeep and the licence produced by him was fake and the Insurance Company was thus, exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. It was further held that respondent No.1 has died and after making payment of the compensation amount to the claimants, Insurance Company can recover the same from the owner/respondent No.2, while respondents No.3, 4, 6 and 7, who were driver, owners and insurer of Car No.DL-4-CD-0345 were exonerated. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid appeals have been instituted by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation as well as by the LRs of driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 9. The only issue required to be determined relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of 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 and finding on issue No. 1 is thus not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants in FAO-897-2004 and FAO-885-2004 contended that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation for injuries which is grossly inadequate. In FAO-885- 2004, the Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation under the various PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -6- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and has failed to adequately compensate the claimant for pain and sufferings, medical expenses, special diet, transportation charges, attendant charges, loss of income during treatment and due to permanent disability. Learned counsel prayed that the impugned awards are thus liable to be modified and the claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants in FAO-2220- 2004, FAO-1467-2004, FAO-1442-2004 and FAO-2219-2004 submitted that the Tribunal has erred in granting recovery rights to respondent No.5–Oriental Insurance Company after directing it to satisfy the award. Learned counsel further contended that the finding of the Tribunal that respondent No.1-driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and that the licence produced by him was fake is contrary to the evidence on record and legally unsustainable. It is further contended that the Insurance Company has failed to establish any conscious or wilful breach of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the insured and therefore, the direction permitting the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner deserves to be set aside. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.5- Oriental Insurance Company argued that the Awards in question in both the appeals are 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. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that the driver of the PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -7- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the licence produced by him was fake. Consequently, while directing the Insurance Company to satisfy the Awards in the first instance in order to protect the interests of the claimants, the Tribunal has rightly granted recovery rights against the insured/owner. Issue of liability 13. In order to prove that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, respondent No.2 placed on file the copy of the driving licence of respondent No.1 Mark R-5. This licence has been issued at Serial No.46277 by Licensing Authority, Patiala, authorizing him to drive scooter, car, jeep and tractor and same was valid from 02.01.1998 to 02.01.2008. To disprove the same, the Insurance Company examined RW2-Kaish Kumar, Clerk, DTO Office, Patiala. He deposed that he has brought the summoned register pertaining to issuance of driving licence No.12978 to 14314 w.e.f. 28.05.1998 to 03.07.1998. He stated that on 02.06.1998, the licences are issued at Serial No.13161 and this entry relates to renewal of licence. On 02.06.1998, licenses are renewed at Serial No.13161 to 13196. He further deposed that he has brought other register pertaining to original licence starting w.e.f. 04.03.1999 to 12.03.1999 bearing Serial No. 45851 to 46558 and as per their record, licence at Serial No.46277 has been issued in favour of Hardip Singh, S/o Surjit Singh, R/o Patiala for scooter and car w.e.f. 10.03.1999 to 04.07.2028. He tendered copy of the register Ex.R4. He deposed that as per record brought by him, no licence has been issued in PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -8- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 favour of Karamjit Singh Sandhu vide Serial No.46277 and same is Mark R5. He further stated that he has seen verification report made by their office which is in the handwriting of Sham Lal, Clerk and he identified his signatures on the report Ex.R6. During cross-examination, he stated that as per the record of renewal register brought by him at Serial No.13187, the licence is renewed in the name of Karamjit Singh i.e. respondent No.1 for scooter, car and jeep valid w.e.f 02.06.1998 to 02.01.2008 which is the renewal number and old number of the same is 46277-P/Patiala dated 29.06.1993. He stated that licence which was issued in 1993 was renewed against Serial No.13187. He admitted that original licence which was renewed vide Serial No.13187 w.e.f 02.08.1998 was issued prior to 02.08.1998 on Patiala itself. He also admitted that he has seen the verification report Ex.R-8, which has been issued by Harvinder Singh, Clerk and he identified his signatures. Thereafter, his cross-examination was deferred and he was directed to bring the record for the period 29.06.1993 bearing licence No.46277- Patiala and on the adjourned date, he made a statement that as per their record, there was no Serial No.46277 on 29.06.1993. As such, no licence was found to have been issued in favour of respondent No.1 at Serial No.46277 dated 29.06.1993 which was allegedly renewed against Serial No.13187 for the period 02.06.1998 to 02.01.2008. However, since the original driving licence is not proved to have been issued, it shall be deemed to be fake and merely because a fake licence has been renewed subsequently will not validate it and fake licence will always remain fake. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -9- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 14. The owner of the vehicle/insured namely Mukhtiar Singh has also stepped into the witness box as RW3 and deposed that Karamjit Singh was friend of his son and was on good terms with them. He was holding a valid driving licence which had been issued by Licensing Authority, Patiala and it appeared to be genuine on appearance. Before handing over the jeep to him, he had taken his driving test. He knew driving of jeep. Prior to the accident, he had taken Karamjit Singh to Chandigarh in the said jeep which was driven by him to Chandigarh and then back to Patiala and that he was a good driver. In this manner, the owner has also categorically deposed that he had tested the driving skills of the driver before handing over the jeep to him and had also seen his driving licence which appeared to be genuine. Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022 ACJ 1868, Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Company Limited and others, has held that owner of the vehicle is expected to check driving skills of the driver and not to run to the licensing authority to verify genuineness of the driving licence before appointing a driver and therefore, once the owner is satisfied that driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from him to verify genuineness of the driving licence issued to the driver and the direction of ‘pay and recover’ given by the High Court was set aside and it was held that Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the amount from the owner/insured. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court in Law Finder Doc ID # 2790918, Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. And others, has also PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -10- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 held that owner of the vehicle is not expected to verify the authenticity of the driving licence from the licensing authority and he can only rely upon the licence produced by the prospective driver seeking employment. In case, Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability or to get “pay and recover rights” against the insured/owner on the ground of driving licence being fake, the Insurance Company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured, meaning thereby, the insured had deliberately committed a breach by entrusting the vehicle to a driver who had a fake driving licence or that the owner did not employ due diligence at the time of handing over the vehicle. It has been further held that in the absence of pleading or substantiation that owner allowed the driver to drive a vehicle knowing the licence to be fake, or failed to employ due diligence in the driver’s employment/entrustment, the High Court erred in issuing pay and recover directions against the insured-owner. It has been further held that Insurance Company must prove the willful breach of the policy condition i.e. entrusting the vehicle to a driver without a valid licence by the insured in case it wants right of recovery against the insured, even if the driver’s licence is fake. 15. In the present case also, it is established from the evidence on file that the insured/owner had seen the driving licence of the driver and had also tested his driving skills before handing over the jeep to him and Insurance Company has failed to establish that there was wilfull default on the part of the insured and breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. In these circumstances, Insurance Company cannot PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -11- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 be absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured and it cannot recover the awarded amount from the owner/insured. Accordingly, finding of Issue No.2 is not sustainable and same is reversed. Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-897-2004, Madan Lal Vs. Karamjit Singh and others , arising out of MACT Case No.48 of 12.06.1999 :- 16. As per the version of claimant-Madan Lal, he had suffered injuries and had spent huge amount on treatment. To prove the same, claimant has examined PW3 Dr. Jatinder Singh Sodhi, who has tendered in evidence the discharge card of the claimant ExPW3/1, which shows that claimant was admitted in Sutlej hospital, Ludhiana on 05.01.1998 at 2:00 PM on account of injuries suffered by him in a roadside accident. He had suffered injury on right forearm but he was conscious and oriented. Lacerated wound was present on right forearm near wrist. No X-ray report has been led in evidence to establish that claimant had suffered any fracture or grievous injury and as such, he had suffered simple injuries for which, he was treated conservatively and dressing of the wounds was done and some medicines were prescribed. 17. PW1 Gurjit Singh from Deep Drugs Store has proved cash memos Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B vide which, medicines worth Rs.2166/- were purchased. 18. AW2 Alok Nath deposed that he is working as Technician in operation theatre of Deep Hospital. Madan Lal remained admitted in the said hospital. After his dressing was done in the hospital, he had been dressing the post operative wounds of Madan Lal from 07.01.1998 to PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -12- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 30.01.1998 and he had charged Rs. 1,200/- from him against the receipt Ex.PW2/A. 19. However, no doctor has been examined to establish that patient had undergone any surgery and as such, the injuries suffered by him were simple in nature and Tribunal has awarded him a sum of Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- for purchase of medicines and Rs.5,000/- for special diet. However, while calculating the total compensation, it has inadvertently mentioned the amount as Rs.12,000/-. There is some typographical error as the amount awarded under each head is Rs.5,000/- and total comes to Rs.15,000/-. However, taking into consideration the fact that claimant underwent trauma of accident and had suffered simple injuries, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation. 20. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.5,000/- (Rs.20,000/- - Rs.15,000/-). Analysis and assessment of compensation in FAO-885-2004 , Varinder Kumar Vs. Karamjit Singh And Others , arising out of MACT Case No.20 of 04.06.1999 :- 21. As per the version of claimant, he had suffered grievous injuries and underwent multiple surgeries. Besides this, he has become permanently disabled and has spent huge amount on treatment. 22. To prove the injuries suffered by him, claimant has PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -13- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 examined PW9 Dr. H.S. Kang, who deposed that on 05.01.1998, claimant was admitted in Deep Hospital, Ludhiana with history of having suffered injuries in a roadside accident. He had conducted surgery on right tibia which had a fracture. On 07.01.1998, he was operated upon for putting nail in his left femur, which also had a fracture. On 14.01.1998, claimant was discharged from the hospital and was advised to attend hospital regularly. He deposed that fracture on right tibia did not unite despite plating and patient was again operated upon by him in Deep Hospital Ludhiana on 13.05.1998 and he remained hospitalized from 13.05.1998 to 19.05.1998. He tendered in evidence the bed head tickets of the patient Ex.PW9/1 to Ex.PW9/9. 23. PW10 Dr. J.L. Bassi deposed that he is working as Orthopedic Surgeon at DMC Hospital, Ludhiana. On 09.02.1999, claimant was admitted in their hospital with the history of roadside injuries on 05.01.1998 and he had already undergone surgery at Deep Hospital, Ludhiana but he could not recover. Claimant was operated upon by him for removal of the implant and fixator was applied and one grafting was done on the left thigh and he was discharged on 22.09.1999. Patient was again admitted in the hospital on 21.02.2001 and was operated upon on 22.02.2001 for fracture of inter trochanteric screw and was discharged on 28.02.2001. He tendered the case summaries Ex.PW10/1, Ex.PW10/2 and Ex.PW10/3. 24. PW Dr. Pritpal Singh deposed that he had examined the claimant for assessment of disability and claimant has suffered 50% PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -14- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 permanent disability and he tendered the certificate Ex.PW13/1 along with X-rays Ex.PW13/2 and Ex.PW13/3. 25. In addition to this, claimant has examined several witnesses to prove the expenses incurred on treatment and learned Tribunal on the basis of bills proved on file held that he had spend Rs.1,55,000/- on his treatment and awarded him a total compensation of Rs.2,45,000/- under following heads:- 1. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- 2. Permanent disability Rs.40,000/- 3. Medicines Rs.1,55,000/- 4. Special diet Rs.10,000/- 5. Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/- 6. Attendants Rs.5,000/- 7. Loss of income Rs.5,000/- Total Rs.2,40,000/- 26. However, in my considered opinion, adequate compensation has not been assessed under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads as per the settled law. 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -15- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 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. 27. 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). PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -16- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 (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 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. 28. As per version of claimant, he was a businessman and was an income tax payee. He has tendered in evidence income tax returns for the Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1998-99 Ex.PW12/1 and Ex.PW12/2 respectively. Ex.PW12/1 shows that the claimant had earned a sum of Rs.20,000/- during the Assessment Year as a salary and Rs.25,730/- as business profit and his total income was Rs.45,730/- as he was running a firm by the name of M/s. Modern Medicos. As such, as per this return, his income was around Rs.3,500/- per month. Ex.PW12/2 shows that the claimant had earned a sum of Rs.28,000/- during the Assessment Year as salary and Rs.31,325/- as business profit and his total income was Rs.59,325/-. As such, as per this return, his income was around Rs.5,000/- per month. 29. However, on account of the disability suffered by him, he will not suffer any loss of income and his earning capability will not be PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -17- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 diminished as he can keep on running his business in the same manner but shall have to employ some employee with him to assist him and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation on account of loss of income due to permanent disability. 30. Claimant had suffered multiple fractures and had undergone several surgeries and he remained under treatment from the date of accident i.e. 05.01.1998 till he was finally discharged on 28.02.2001 from DMC Hospital, Ludhiana as stated by PW10. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and in view of prolonged treatment and severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of ‘pain and sufferings’. 31. It has come in evidence that accident took place on 05.01.1998 and lastly, the claimant was operated upon in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana in February 2001 and he remained under treatment for almost three years. During this period, he must have engaged an attendant to look after him, and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for engaging an attendant. He must have also spent huge amount on transportation and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.35,000/- for transportation besides Rs.35,000/- for special diet for three years. 32. Claimant remained under treatment for almost three years and he would not have been able to look after the business and must have suffered loss of income during the period of treatment of 36 months and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -18- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of income during the period of treatment. 33. The claimant has suffered 50% of disability due to grievous injuries and underwent multiple surgeries. Accordingly, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- on account of ‘loss of amenities’. 34. However, the amount of Rs.1,55,000/- awarded for medical expenses is adequate and no interference in the same is called for. 35. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation assessed by this Court 1. Medical expenses Rs.1,55,000/- 2. Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.1,50,000/- 3. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 4. Attendant charges Rs.50,000/- 5. Transportation charges Rs.35,000/- 6. Special diet Rs.35,000/- 7. Loss of income during treatment Rs.1,00,000/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.6,05,000/- 36. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs and appellant/claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.6,05,000/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.3,65,000/- (Rs.6,05,000/- - Rs.2,40,000/-). 37. As a result of afore-said discussion, FAO-897-2004 and FAO-885-2004 filed by the claimants is partly accepted with costs while PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-897-2004; FAO-885-2004 FAO-2220-2004; FAO-1467-2004 -19- FAO-1442-2004; FAO-2219-2004 FAO-1467-2004 and FAO-1442-2004 filed by owner against the award dated 14.10.2003 are also accepted in view of findings on issue No.2. Claimant-Madan Lal in FAO-897-2004 is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.5,000/- and claimant-Varinder Kumar in FAO-885- 2004 is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- payable by respondents No.1, 2 and 5 jointly and severally along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of claim petitions i.e. 12.06.1999 in FAO-897-2004 and 04.06.1999 in FAO-885-2004 till realization. Since Insurance Company has been held liable to indemnify the insured, the appeals bearing Nos.FAO- 2219-2004 and FAO-2220-2004, filed by the LRs of deceased driver have been rendered as infructuous particularly because even the Tribunal had not given right to Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the driver. 38. 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. 39. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected cases. 40. Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 22.07.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Priyanka Thakur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.24 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document