FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -1- 267 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.07.2026 1) FAO-347-2005 (O&M) ASHOK KUMAR ......... APPELLANT VERSUS BALBIR KUMAR AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS 2) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) BALBIR KUMAR ......... APPELLANT VERSUS ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR .....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present: Ms. Lipika, Advocate for the appellant in FAO-3874-2004. Ms. Komal Jindal, Advocate/Amicus Curiae for the appellant in FAO-347-2005 and respondent No.1 in FAO-3874-2004. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate for respondent-Insurance Company. ***** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. (Oral) 1. The matter is being taken up in the post lunch session. 2. The aforesaid appeals have been instituted against the Award dated 24.07.2004 passed by MACT, Jagadhri (for short “Tribunal”) passed in MACT Case No.97 of 2002 in a petition under Section 163-A VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -2- of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.84,390/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant-Balbir Kumar along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-26-0494 (for short ‘offending vehicle’) on the part of respondent No.1-Ashok Kumar (owner-cum-driver), which was insured with respondent No.2. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “1. Whether the petitioner received injuries by the use of vehicle No.1 HR26-0494 driven by respondent No.1? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved then to what amount of compensation, the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether respondent no. was not holding Valid D.L. at the time of accident? OPP 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 held under issue No.1 that accident in question had taken place on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-26-0494 being driven by respondent No.1 who was owner of the same. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the claimant to be Rs.2,000/- per month as a skilled driver and as per Schedule II under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, a sum of Rs.76,800/- was assessed as compensation on account of 20% permanent disability VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -3- suffered by the claimant. In addition to this, he was also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for ‘pain and sufferings’ and Rs.2,590/- for the ‘expenses incurred on treatment’ as per bills produced by him and in all, a sum of Rs.84,390/- was awarded as compensation. Under issue No.3, it was held that the driving licence of respondent No.1 had expired on the date of accident and the Insurance Company was thus exonerated of its liability and it was held that the compensation shall be payable by respondent No.1. 6. Feeling aggrieved, appeal No.FAO-3874-2004 has been instituted by the claimant-Balbir Kumar and appeal No.FAO-347-2005 has been instituted by the respondent No.1/owner-cum-driver Ashok Kumar. 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. The finding of the Tribunal on issue No.1 is as under:- “8. In order to prove this issue the petitioner himself appeared as PW-4 and has stated about the factum of the accident. On the other hand, none appeared to refute the allegations made by the petitioner. Otherwise the accident has been admitted by respondent no.1 but in the written statement according to him it was caused with the negligence of some other vehicle. The fact remain that the petitioner being present in the vehicle owned by respondent VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -4- no.1, he can said to be entitled to compensation on account of use of the vehicle owned by respondent no.1. Non-joining of the second vehicle is of no effect. The issue is accordingly disposed of.” 9. A perusal of the aforesaid reasoning given by the Tribunal shows that respondent No.1 had not denied the factum of accident but has alleged that the accident was caused by due to negligence of some other vehicle but no evidence was led. Even otherwise, negligence on the part of driver of any other vehicle is not required to be established for claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. The claimant was present in the vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 and he had suffered injuries and it is thus established that claimant suffered injuries on account of use of vehicle bearing No.HR-26-0494 and finding on issue No.1 is accordingly affirmed. 10. Under issue No.2, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the claimant has suffered fracture in his arm and hip joint. As per the disability certificate Ex.P1 proved by PW1 Dr. Deepak Jain, he was found to have suffered disability to the extent of 20%. PW3 Dr. R.K. Mahajan had treated the claimant and he deposed that patient had suffered fracture in his left hip and fracture head of femur with fracture of pelvis and he proved OPD slips Ex.P9 to Ex.P11. PW2 Jyoti Prasad Bansal has proved the medical bills Ex.P3 to Ex.P8. The evidence led by the claimant had gone uncontroverted and no evidence to prove to the contrary was led by the respondents and it is accordingly established that claimant had suffered two fractures and 20% permanent disability. The claimant was 34 years of age and a driver and he will have to remain with VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -5- this disability throughout his life and it will certainly diminish his earning capabilities and the avocation or profession he will pursue. 11. The Tribunal assessed the income of the claimant to be Rs.2,000/- per month and accepted his version that he was driver of a truck. The accident had taken place on 12.02.2002 and claimant was a skilled driver and in such cases, the Court is required to assess income and ensure just compensation based on preponderance of probabilities. Minimum wage notification may serve as a yardstick but cannot be the sole basis for assessing the income and where the claimant belongs to unorganized sector, strict proof of income is not mandatory and notional income can be reasonably assessed based on the social status and facts and circumstances of the case. 12. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year 2002 and it can be assumed that the claimant who was a driver must be earning at least Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal has thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.2,000/- per month, which is on lower side. Accordingly, income of claimant is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. 13. Claimant was 34 years of age on the date of accident and as such 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Other and after adding the same, his monthly income comes out to Rs.4,200/- per month VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -6- (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,200/-). 14. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.840/- (Rs.4,200/- X 20%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.10,080/- per annum (Rs.840/- X 12). 15. The claimant was 34 years of age and in view of law laid down in 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, the multiplier of 16 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.1,61,280/- (Rs.10,080/- X 16) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. 16. Besides this, claimant has also been awarded Rs.5,000/- for ‘pain and sufferings’ as per Schedule appended to Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act and Rs.2,590/- on account of ‘expenses incurred on treatment’ as per bills produced on file and same do not require any interference. 17. The driving licence of respondent No.1 has been led in evidence as Ex.R2 along with reports Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 of Licencing Authority Ambala and Jagadhari, respectively. The licence was valid from 16.10.1998 to 15.10.2001 and thereafter, it was got renewed from 16.04.2002 to 15.04.2005. The accident had taken place on 12.02.2002 on which date the driving licence had expired and as such, respondent No.1 was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and Insurance Company has thus rightly been exonerated of its liability to indemnify the insured. In holding so, I have relied upon 2007(2) RCR(Civil) 370 Ishwar Chandra & Ors. Vs. The Oriental VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -7- Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. However, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant being third party and it shall have a right to recover the awarded amount from the insured/owner and finding on issues No.2 and 3 are modified to that extent and it is held that Insurance Company shall first of all pay the awarded amount to the claimant and then it shall have a right to recover the same from owner/insured along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization. 18. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Awarded (₹) 1. Loss of income due to permanent dis- ability 1,61,280/- 2. Pain and sufferings 5,000/- 3. Expenses incurred on treatment 2,590/- Total Compensation 1,68,870/- Interest 9% 19. The enhanced compensation payable to claimant thus comes out to Rs.84,480/- (Rs.1,68,870/- - Rs.84,390/-). 20. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the appeal bearing No.FAO-3874-2004 is partly allowed with costs and appeal bearing No.FAO-347-2005 is hereby dismissed with costs. 21. In FAO-3874-2004, appellant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.84,480/-, which is rounded off to Rs.84,500/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-347-2005 (O&M) FAO-3874-2004 (O&M) -8- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 04.05.2002 till realization payable by respondent No.1- owner/insured. However, Insurance Company shall be liable to pay the amount to the claimant but it shall have a right to recover the deposited amount from the insured along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of deposit till realization without filing a separate suit. 22. 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. 23. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 24. Photocopy of this order be placed on the file(s) of connected case(s). (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Vishal Vardhan Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No VISHAL VARDHAN 2026.07.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document