IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1191-2005 (O&M) Narender Dev Bhatara (deceased) thr LRs . . . . Appellants Vs. Kabul Singh and Others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on: 14.05.2026 Pronounced on: 15.05.2026 Pronounced fully/opera5ve part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Amardeep Singh Gill, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. G.S. Bal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Avtar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Gurpreet Singh Fateh, Sr. DAG, Punjab for respondent No.4. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking modi- fica-on and enhancement of the award dated 29.09.2004 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar qua the quantum of compensa-on. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Shri Narender Dev Bhatara, the claimant, was a re-red judicial officer of the State of Punjab. A6er re-ring as Addi-onal District and Sessions Judge, he served as President, District Con- sumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar and re-red therefrom on 12.07.2000. On 09.08.2000 at about 06:00 a.m., while he was on his rou-ne morning walk, he was hit by Punjab Roadways Bus bearing registra-on No.PB- 06B-3509, being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. Af- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.15 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1191-2005 (O&M) ter hi<ng the claimant, the offending bus also struck a police Head Constable namely Prem Singh son of Santokh Singh, who unfortunately died at the spot. The claimant suffered mul-ple grievous injuries including head injury, fractures of skull, ribs, hips and legs besides neurological complica-ons. Ma?er was re- ported to the police. 3. In the claim pe--on filed under Sec-on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was pleaded that the claimant was drawing pension of about ₹12,000/- per month and had also been serving as President of the Consumer Forum. It was further pleaded that considering his long judicial experience, he intended to prac-ce law a6er re-rement and would have earned substan-al professional income. It was further averred that because of the serious injuries suffered in the accident, the claimant remained hospitalized for a long dura-on, con-nued under treatment and became dependent upon a?endants and phys- iotherapy. 4. Learned Tribunal, a6er apprecia-ng the evidence available on record, returned a categorical finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending bus. The said finding has a?ained finality. Compensa-on of ₹10,00,000/- was awarded under different heads including medical expenses, a?endant charges, future treatment, disability and loss of in- come. 5. During pendency of the present appeal, the claimant expired on 18.03.2026 and his legal representa-ves were brought on record vide order dated 14.05.2026. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that the claimant had suffered devasta-ng neurological and orthopedic injuries resul-ng in complete loss of mobility and independence and that he remained virtually bed-ridden and in a vegeta-ve condi-on throughout his remaining life. It is submi?ed that although the medical disability was assessed at 60%, the func-onal disability in the facts and circumstances of the present case was ef- NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.15 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1191-2005 (O&M) fec-vely 100%. It is further argued that learned Tribunal erred in awarding a meager and composite amount under the heads of disability, pain and suffering and loss of ameni-es. Enhancement is also sought towards a?endant charges and compensa-on for loss of enjoyment and expectancy of life. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has not been able to seri- ously dispute the nature of injuries and prolonged suffering of the claimant and submits that appropriate orders may be passed in accordance with law. 8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and appraised the record with their able assistance. 9. The fact that the claimant suffered mul-ple grievous injuries in- cluding severe head injury with neurological impairment is fully established from the medical evidence available on record. The disability cer-ficate as- sessed permanent disability at 60%. However, it is by now well se?led that phys- ical disability and func-onal disability are not necessarily iden-cal concepts. 10. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while assessing compensa-on in injury cases, the Tri- bunal is required to determine the actual impact of permanent disability on the earning capacity and day-to-day func-oning of the vic-m and that percentage of permanent physical disability cannot mechanically be treated as equivalent to economic or func-onal disability. 11. In the present case, the claimant was not an ordinary re-red per- son leading a sedentary life. He was a re-red Addi-onal District and Sessions Judge and had also served as President of the District Consumer Forum. The evi- dence on record establishes that because of the severe neurological and ortho- pedic injuries suffered in the accident, he became permanently dependent upon a?endants and lost the ability to independently pursue any professional or per- sonal ac-vity. The record further reveals that he remained bed-ridden and in a severely incapacitated condi-on. As per Ld. Counsel, this condi-on con-nued -ll NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.15 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1191-2005 (O&M) his death in March, 2026. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the func-onal disability suffered by the claimant was, for all prac-- cal purposes, 100%. 12. It is undisputed that the claimant had crossed the age of 65 years at the -me of accident. Therefore, the appropriate mul-plier applicable in the present case would be ‘5’. Since the claimant was already receiving pension, the same could not strictly be treated as loss of income arising from disability. How- ever, the conten-on raised on behalf of the appellants that the claimant, having immense judicial and legal experience, would have pursued legal prac-ce and earned substan-al professional income deserves acceptance to a reasonable ex- tent. 13. Though the exact future income from legal prac-ce cannot be mathema-cally determined, courts are empowered to make a reasonable and pragma-c assessment on the basis of surrounding circumstances and probabili- -es. 14. Having regard to the stature, experience and background of the claimant, no-onal monthly earning of ₹15,000/- is assessed for determining fu- ture loss of earning capacity. Thus, annual income comes to ₹1,80,000/- and by applying mul-plier of ‘5’ with 100% func-onal disability, compensa-on under the head of future loss of earning capacity is assessed at ₹9,00,000/-. 15. Apart from above, compensa-on under the Motor Vehicles Act is required to be “just compensa-on” and cannot be confined to mere mathema-- cal calcula-ons. In cases involving permanent neurological impairment, courts are required to take a broad and humane view of the ma?er. 16. In R.D. Haangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. [1995 SCC (1) 551], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while awarding compensa-on in per- sonal injury cases, damages are required to be assessed not only for pecuniary losses but also for non-pecuniary damages such as pain and suffering, loss of NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.15 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1191-2005 (O&M) ameni-es, loss of expecta-on of life and inability to enjoy normal comforts of life. 17. Keeping in view the age, stature and legal background of the claimant and the complete destruc-on of his independent and meaningful life a6er the accident, this Court finds that learned Tribunal inadequately compen- sated the claimant under the non-pecuniary heads. 18. Learned Tribunal awarded a consolidated amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards disability, pain and suffering and loss of ameni-es. Such clubbing to- gether of dis-nct heads of compensa-on is not in consonance with se?led prin- ciples governing award of just compensa-on. Pain and suffering, loss of ameni- -es and disability cons-tute separate heads requiring independent considera- -on. 19. The claimant had suffered severe trauma, prolonged hospitaliza- -on, con-nuous medical treatment and irreversible physical and neurological impairment. He remained bed-ridden and dependent upon others for day-to- day ac-vi-es for the remainder of his life. Therefore, compensa-on awarded by the Tribunal under non-pecuniary heads deserves substan-al enhancement. 20. Accordingly, the amount of 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is treated as compensa-on towards pain and suffering alone. In addi-on thereto, a further amount of 2,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of ameni-es of life, loss of enjoyment of life and loss of expectancy. 21. Learned Tribunal has already awarded substan-al amount towards medical treatment, future medical expenses, physiotherapy and a?endant charges. However, keeping in view the status of the claimant, his prolonged de- pendency and the requirement of constant assistance throughout his remaining life, this Court finds it appropriate to award an addi-onal amount of ₹1,00,000/- towards driver-cum-a?endant charges. Page 5 of 6 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.15 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1191-2005 (O&M) 22. Consequently, the enhanced compensa-on payable to the appel- lants is re-worked as under: Head of Compensa5on Amount (₹) Future loss of earning capacity 9,00,000/- Loss of ameni-es of life and loss of expecta-on of life 2,00,000/- Addi-onal a?endant/driver charges 1,00,000/- Total Enhanced Compensa-on 12,00,000/- 23. Consequently, the present appeal is partly allowed. Over and above the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, the appellants shall be en-- tled to enhanced compensa-on of ₹12,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim pe--on -ll realiza-on. The liability to sa-sfy the award shall remain joint and several upon the respondents. 24. Pending applica-on(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE 15.05.2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No Uploaded on.: 15.05.2026 NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.05.15 14:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document