FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -1- S. No.298 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) Date of Decision:13.07.2026 Mohinder Singh .....Appellant Vs. Surjit Singh and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present:- Mr. Kartar Singh, Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant. Mr. R.C. Gupta, Advocate for the respondent- New India Insurance Company. **** Yashvir Singh Rathor, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant against the Award dated 19.8.2004 passed in MACT Case No.51/FTC/2000/2003 decided by MACT, (Adhoc) Fast Track Court, Hoshiarpur (for short “Tribunal”) in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation vide which a sum of Rs.80,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-01E/7945 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3. RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -2- 2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed by learned MACT:- “1. Whether the respondent no.1 was negligent in driving the Tata sumo no.HR-01-E-7945 thereby causing injuries to Mohinder Singh? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount? OPP 3. Whether the respondent no.1 was holding the valid driving licence at the time of accident?OPP 4. Whether the claim petition is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder?OPR 5. Whether the respondent no.2 was the owner of the offending vehicle at the time the accident?OPR 6. Whether the claimant has received compensation from insurance company on account of injuries caused due to accident? OPR 7. Relief.” 3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally. RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -3- 5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 6. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the 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 respondents No.1 to 3 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The compensation has not been awarded for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages as per settled law and the impugned award is thus liable to be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent argued that the award in question is 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. 9. 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, RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -4- 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. 10. 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) RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -5- (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. 11. As per version of claimant, he had suffered multiple injuries including fractures and had spent huge amount on his treatment. He also remained on leave for about 11 months and he suffered loss of income and was not paid salary as he was working in the Police Department. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation under Issue No.2 held as under:- “Issue No.2: 7. The onus to prove this issue was also on the claimant. He has deposed that after the accident he was taken to BBMB Hospital, Talwara from where he was referred to DMC, Ludhiana where he remained admitted. He has stated that he is working in Police Department as a constable. He could not attend his duty for 8-9 months. AW-2 Vijay Kumar has deposed that Mohinder Singh was admitted in DMC, Ludhiana on 18.6.2000 and remained there till RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -6- 10.7.2000 and was charged Rs.20,330/- vide bill Ex.A-2. He has also proved medical bills Ex.A-3 to A-26. AW-3 P.K. Sharma has also proved bills Ex.A-27 to Ex.A-96 issued in the name of Mohinder Singh claimant. Claimant has also tendered in evidence some medical bills as mark but these could not be exhibited as these were not duly proved by any witness. Claimant has also deposed that in the hospital he was being attended by three persons and he had also spent about Rs.8000/- on conveyance and Rs.50,000/- on special diet. So in view of this I assess the compensation as under: Hospitalisation expenses Rs.11,000.00 Medical expenses Rs.41,500.00 Pain & suffering Rs.15,000.00 Special diet Rs. 5,000.00 Taxi charges Rs. 4,500.00 Attendant charges Rs. 3,000.00 ____________ Total compensation assessed Rs.80,000.00 _____________ 8. So I assess the compensation as Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. According this issue is decided in favour of claimant and against respondents.” RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -7- 12. However, the compensation assessed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and adequate compensation has not been awarded under various heads. The discharge card of the claimant has been led in evidence as Ex.A22 which has been issued by Dayanand Medical College & Hospital, Ludhiana and has been proved by AW3 Vijay, Cashier DMC Ludhiana. Perusal of the same shows that the claimant had suffered fracture Orbit medial wall, fracture ethmoid, fracture greater wing sphenoid and fracture right temporal bone. He underwent surgery and implants were inserted. He was operated upon and arch bar fixation with internal fixation of right jygoma with IMF was done. He was admitted in the said hospital on 18.6.2000 and was discharged on 10.7.2000. Thereafter, he remained under treatment as an outdoor patient as per OPD cards Ex.A23 to Ex.A26. As such, from the evidence led on file, it is established that the claimant had suffered multiple fractures on vital parts of his body and he was operated upon and implants were inserted. However, only a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been awarded towards pain and sufferings which is grossly inadequate. Such injuries must have taken a long time to heal and pain component in such injuries is also enormous and therefore, taking into consideration the severity of injuries, the claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of pain and sufferings. 13. During cross-examination, claimant as AW1 has stated that his salary was Rs.5,500/- per month but he admitted that he was getting his salary for the period he remained under treatment and as such, he has not suffered any loss of income and he is thus not entitled to any compensation on account of loss of income during the period of treatment. RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -8- 14. No evidence has been led to establish that the claimant has suffered any permanent disability and as such, he is not entitled to any compensation under the said head. 15. Besides this, the claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.52,500/- for the expenses incurred on the treatment as per bills produced on file. However, he must have spent some more amount on his treatment as patients or their attendants generally do not preserve all the bills and in all, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.60,000/- for the expenses incurred on the treatment. It must have taken at least six months for the injuries to heal during which period claimant must have spent some amount on transportation, on special diet and in engaging an attendant. He has been awarded Rs.5,000/- for special diet, Rs.4,500/- for transportation and a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards attendant charges and total comes to Rs.12,500/- and the same is enhanced to Rs.30,000/- under these head. 16. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Amount Assessed by this Court (₹) 1. Pain and Sufferings Rs.50,000/- 2. Expenses Incurred on Treatment Rs.60,000/- 3. Engaging an Attendant, Special Diet & Transportation (Composite) Rs.30,000/- Total Rs.1,40,000/- Interest 9% 17. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.60,000/- (Rs.1,40,000/- - Rs.80,000/-) over and above the compensation RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh FAO No.649 of 2005 (O&M) -9- awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 13.12.2000, till realization. 18. 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. 19. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (Yashvir Singh Rathor) Judge July 13, 2026 renu Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RENU 2026.07.14 17:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh