FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -1- 272 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-3294-2004(O&M) Date of Decision: 20.07.2026 STATE OF HARYANA ......... Appellant VERSUS JAGDEV AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Mr. Abhinav Mahant, AAG, Haryana for the appellant. Mr. Naveen Singh Thakur, Advocate for respondent No.1/claimant. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2-New India Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Naveen Singh Thakur, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.1 and filed his power of attorney. The same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. 2. This appeal has been instituted by State of Haryana through General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon against the Award dated 24.04.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Gurgaon (for short “Tribunal”) in MACT Case No.73 of 07.05.1999 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -2- Rs.4,47,362/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant Jagdev along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 20.02.1999 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1-Man Singh, while driving offending Bus bearing No.HR-38-8925 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), which was owned by respondent No.2. Respondents No.1 and 2 have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant jointly and severally while the owner of the mini bus and its insurer New India Assurance Company have been exonerated by the Tribunal. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1) Whether injuries to Jagdev were caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.HR-38-8925 driven by respondent No.1 namely Man Singh driver as alleged? OPP. 2) If issue No.1 is proved to what amount the petitioner is entitled as compensation and from which of the respondents? OPP. 3) Whether respondent No.1 namely Man Singh did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. If so to what effect? OPR. 4) Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.4,47,362/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -3- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Registry and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and the evidence on file in the correct perspective while coming to the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1-Man Singh. Learned counsel next contended that infact, the FIR regarding the accident was lodged by respondent No.1-Man Singh and claimant-Jagdev was tried but was acquitted. However, the claimant himself was driving rashly and negligently while driving the mini bus in a zig zag manner while being under the influence of liquor but the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in the correct perspective and he prayed that finding on issue No.1 is thus liable to be reversed. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that claimant was a driver and claimed his income to be Rs.5,800/- per month. The accident had taken place on 20.02.1999 and driver of a mini bus could not have been paid such a huge salary and PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -4- Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the evidence led by the claimant in respect of his income. Learned counsel next contended that the compensation awarded is on higher side and same is thus liable to be reduced and he prayed that the appeal in hand be accepted and just compensation be assessed. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for claimant/injured argued that the Tribunal had rightly held that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of offending bus i.e. respondent No.1-Man Singh and finding of the Tribunal in this regard is well-reasoned and justified and same does not call for any interference. Learned counsel next contended that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and same has not been assessed under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads and by assessing the loss of income that will be suffered by the victim in future on account of amputation of his leg. No amount has been awarded for purchase of artificial limb as well and he prayed that the compensation be duly enhanced. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1017 Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and 2026(2) RCR (Civil) 711 Prahlad Sahai Vs. Haryana Roadways and another. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -5- 10. Now the point to be decided is as to on account of whose negligence the accident in question had taken place. Learned Tribunal while giving finding on issue No.1 has discussed the material on file while giving finding as under:- “11. As already indicated in an earlier part of this award, the pure and simple plea of the petitioner is that the impugned accident had been caused by respondent No.1 by driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and by hitting the Mini bus. 12. The petitioner stepped into the witness box, as his own witness, as PW1 and testified on oath that the impugned accident had been caused by respondent No.1 only by having driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. His testimony on those points is fully supported by that of PW2 Ved Parkash who was conductor on the Mini bus. 13. As against it, respondent No.1 stepped into the witness box, as his own witness, as RW2 and put the entire blame upon the petitioner himself for having caused the impugned accident. He also stated that he had gone to the police station and narrated the facts to the police which inspected the spot but did not register an FIR on his request. The grievance indicated by RW2 is that the police opted to register an FIR lodged by the driver of the Mini bus (i.e. petitioner). 14. As would be evident from a perusal of judgment Ex.P16, an FIR in the contest had been lodged by respondent No.2. The petitioner was tried but acquitted of the charge vide judgment aforesaid. On the other hand, the statement made by PW1 Jagdev to the effect that he had moved application Ex.P1 to the S.P. by registered post (postal receipt thereof is PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -6- Ex.P2) but that no action was taken on the basis thereof, is supported y the record-based testimony of PW5 HC Om Parkash, Complaint Clerk in the Office of Superintendent of Police, Gurgaon, who testified that the relevant complaint which is entered at serial No.793-P dated 21.4.1999 had been forwarded to the office of DSP, Headquarters and that it had been entered in the register of the latter office at serial No.56P dated 21.4.1999. He also proved Ex.P4, an extract of that complaint. 15. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied that though the petitioner was tried on a charge of having caused the impugned accident by rash and negligent driving, he stands acquitted of the charge. The plea raised by respondent No.1 does not deserve acceptance for the simple reason that there was no plea raised by him in the course of the written statement that the petitioner had caused the impugned accident while being under the influence of liquor. That averment was made by respondent No.1, for the first time, as RW2 by stating that “It was being driven in a zig zag manner and it gave an impression as if its driver was under the influence of liquor”. If there was even an iota of truth in the averment made by respondent No.1(RW2), there is no reason why he would not have indicated that fact in the course of the written statement. The relevant plea appears to be creature of an after thought and a concoction. 16. It is, accordingly, held that the petitioner has been able to prove that the respondent No.1 had caused the impugned accident by driving offending bus rashly and negligently. The issue stands decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents No.1 and 2.” 11. In this manner, both the drivers have put-forth their PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -7- respective versions. The claimant-Jagdev has alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Man Singh while driving his bus while respondent No.1-Man Singh has alleged that claimant was driving vehicle under the influence of liquor in a zig zag manner which resulted in the accident. However, the Tribunal has rightly observed that claimant has already been acquitted of the charge for driving his Mini bus in a rash and negligent manner. Learned Tribunal further held that respondent No.1 who was driver of the offending bus has not pleaded that the claimant was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident and such an averment has been made for the first time while deposing before the Tribunal when he alleged that the bus was being driven in a zig zag manner which gave an impression that the driver of mini bus was under the influence of liquor. The Tribunal held that in case claimant was under the influence of liquor and was driving his Mini bus in a zig zag manner, this fact should have been pleaded in the written statement and the evidence led by him is just an afterthought and a concoction. Learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has thus arrived at the conclusion that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1-Man Singh while driving the offending bus and no other reasonable finding could have been arrived at from the evidence led on file. There is thus no reason to interfere in the finding returned by the Tribunal on issue No.1 and same is accordingly affirmed. 12. The next point to be decided is as to whether this Court PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -8- while deciding an appeal instituted by the owner of offending vehicle against the award of compensation can enhance the compensation without any appeal or cross-objections having been filed by the claimant. The answer is certainly in the affirmative. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Law Finder Doc Id #2884320, United India Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Taraqqi Lal (Since Deceased) and others, while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2021) 16 SCC 467, Surekha and Ors. Vs. Santosh and Ors., has held that the Appellate Court has jurisdiction to enhance compensation even when claimant has not filed cross-appeal or cross-objections as assessment of just compensation is the statutory duty of the court and procedural technicalities cannot deprive claimant of his legitimate entitlement. In Surekha Vs. Santosh’s case (supra), High Court of Judicature at Bombay while deciding the appeal filed by the Insurance Company had held that compensation amount payable to claimants ought to have been Rs.49,85,376/- but declined to grant enhancement merely on the ground that claimants/appellants had failed to file cross-appeal. However, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is well settled that in the matter of insurance claim compensation in reference to the motor accident cases, the courts should not take hypertechnical approach and should ensure that just compensation is awarded to the affected person or the claimants and awarded the enhanced compensation as assessed by Bombay High Court. 13. The next point to be determined is about the quantum of compensation that may be awarded to the claimant. The law is well PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -9- 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 provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief. 14. 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: PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -10- (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 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. 15. As per version of claimant, he had suffered injuries in the accident in question which resulted into amputation of his right leg. He suffered disability to the extent of 80% and learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence led before it awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,47,362/- under following heads. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -11- Sr. No. Heads Amount 1. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Loss of future prospects Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Permanent disability Rs.1,00,000/- 5. Amount spent on treatment Rs.47,362/- 16. In the present case, it is not in dispute that claimant has suffered amputation of his right leg above knee. This fact has also been deposed by PW10 Dr. Anil Kaul, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Batra Hospital, New Delhi who had amputated his leg along with Dr. U.K. Sadhu. As such, it is established that the right leg of the claimant was amputated and Tribunal has thus rightly awarded him a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for pain and sufferings besides Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of amenities of life and a sum of Rs.47,362/- for the expenses incurred on treatment as per bills produced by him. However, only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- has been awarded for loss of future prospects and another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for permanent disability, which in my opinion is grossly inadequate. 17. As per disability certificate Ex.P3, which has been proved by PW4 Dr. Akhlaq Ahmad, who was Member of the Board which assessed the permanent disability, the claimant had suffered disability to the extent of 80% on account of the said amputation. However, claimant was a driver by profession and as such, his disability has to be taken as 100% for the purpose of loss of his income as he will not be able to drive a vehicle and work as a driver. Accordingly, his disability is taken as 100%. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -12- keeping in view the percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. 18. As per version of claimant, he was employed as driver on a Mini Bus and used to get salary of Rs.5,800/- per month. To prove his income, he has examined PW6 Bal Kishan, who tendered in evidence the salary certificate Ex.P5, according to which, a sum of Rs.2,800/- was being paid as salary to the claimant. As such, the version of claimant that he was getting salary of Rs.5,800/- per month is negated from the salary certificate Ex.P5. Resultantly, his income is taken as Rs.2,800/- per month. 19. The Tribunal has held that the claimant was 30 years of age and as such, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, her monthly income comes out to Rs.3,920/- per month (Rs.2,800/- + Rs.1,120/-). 20. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 100% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.3,920/- (Rs.3,920/- X 100%) and ‘annual loss of income’ will come out to Rs.47,040/- per annum (i.e. Rs.3,920/- X 12). 21. Claimant was 30 years of age and in view of law laid down PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -13- in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the multiplier of 17 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.7,99,680/- (Rs.47,040/- X 17) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 22. The accident had taken place in February, 1999 and claimant was 30 years of age at the time of accident. 27 years have passed since then and claimant must have purchased an artificial limb for day to day movement. Accordingly, he is also held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing artificial limb. However, now with the advancement of technology, prosthetic limbs have come in the market which are more comfortable and Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of judgments has held that the victims who have suffered amputation should be granted compensation for purchase of prosthetic limb and has held as under in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain’s case (supra):- “COMPENSATION FOR THE PURCHASE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROSTHETIC LEG 22. The High Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,20,000/- for the prosthetic limb and Rs.50,000/- towards repair and maintenance of the same. The Appellant submits that the cost of the prosthetic limb itself is Rs. 2,60,000/- and the life of the prosthetic limb is only 5-6 years. The prosthetic limb also requires repair and maintenance after every 6 months to 1 year, and each repair costs between Rs.15,000 to Rs.20,000/-. This would mean that the prosthetic limb would last the Appellant for only 15 years under the current PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -14- compensation. The Appellant at the time of the accident was aged 37 years and has a full life ahead. It has been clearly stated by this Court in the case of Anant Son of Sidheshwar Dukre (Supra) that the purpose of fair compensation is to restore the injured to the position he was in prior to the accident as best as possible. The relevant paragraph of the judgment is being extracted herein: “In cases of motor accidents leading to injuries and disablements, it is a well settled principle that a person must not only be compensated for his physical injury, but also for the non-pecuniary losses which he has suffered due to the injury. The Claimant is entitled to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life and enjoy those things and amenities which he would have enjoyed, but for the injuries.” “The purpose of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to fully and adequately restore the aggrieved to the position prior to the accident.” 23. As per the current compensation given for the prosthetic limb and its maintenance, it would last the Appellant for only 15 years, even if we were to assume that the limb would not need to be replaced after a few years. The Appellant was only 37 years at the time of the accident, and it would be reasonable to assume that he would live till he is 70 years old if not more. We are of the opinion that the Appellant must be compensated so that he is able to purchase three prosthetic limbs in his lifetime and is able to maintain the same at least till he has PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -15- reached 70 years of age. For the Prosthetic limbs alone, the Appellant is to be awarded compensation of Rs. 7,80,000 and for maintenance of the same he is to be awarded an additional Rs.5,00,000/-.” 23. While relying upon Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain’s case (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prahlad Sahai’ case (supra) has held that prosthetic limb has a replacement cycle of five years which needs annual maintenance as well and besides the price of the prosthetic limb, the claimant is also entitled to amount required for its periodic maintenance and a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- was awarded for purchasing prosthetic limb five times and Rs.75,000/- as maintenance for a period of five years each and total amount awarded to claimant in Prahlad Sahai’s case (supra) for purchasing and maintenance of prosthetic limbs was Rs.26,00,000/-. In the present case, claimant was 30 years of age at the time of accident which took place in February 1999. No evidence has been led to prove that the claimant had purchased any prosthetic limb earlier and now he is 57 years of age and taking into consideration the fact that the life span is around 70 years, he will require at least three prosthetic limbs in future and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for purchase of prosthetic limbs and their maintenance. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -16- 24. However, the amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, and Rs.47,362/- towards medical expenses incurred on treatment are adequate and no interference in the same is called for. 25. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head ₹ This Court ( ) 1. Loss of future income due to permanent disability Rs.7,99,680/- 2. Pain & sufferings Rs.1,00,000/- 3. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/- 4. Expenses incurred on treatment Rs.47,362/- 5. Purchase of Artificial leg Rs.50,000/- 6. Purchase of prosthetic limbs and their maintenance Rs.15,00,000/- Total Rs.25,97,042/- 26. Resultantly, the appeal in hand is partly accepted with costs. Claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,97,042/- as compensation. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.21,49,680/- (Rs.25,97,042/- - Rs.4,47,362/-) (rounded off to Rs.21,50,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. However, claimant shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- awarded for purchasing prosthetic limbs and their PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-3294-2004(O&M) -17- maintenance from the date of judgment passed by this Court till realization and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the remaining amount of enhanced compensation i.e. Rs.6,50,000/- (Rs.21,50,000/- - Rs.15,00,000/-) from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 07.05.1999 till realization payable by respondents No.1 and 2/appellant, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively, jointly and severally. 27. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 20.07.2026 Priyanka Thakur Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.07.23 19:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document