FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4794-2010(O&M) GAURI VERMA ......... Appellant VERSUS NIRMAL SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Respondents 1. Judgment reserved on 12.05.2026 2. Judgment pronounced on 01.08.2026 3. Judgment uploaded on 01.08.2026 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full 5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full judgment and reason thereof. Nil CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Argued by : Mr. Naveen Chopra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate for respondent No.3-NIA. **** YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR , J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. A perusal of the Award shows that the liability of respondents No.1, 2 and 3 was held to be joint and several. Since respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner respectively) were proceeded against ex-parte before the learned Tribunal and the liability of the respondents is joint and several, there is no necessity to issue notice to them. As such, issuance of notice to respondents No.1 and 2 is dispensed with. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -2- 2. This appeal has been instituted by the claimant for enhancement of compensation against the Award dated 22.09.2009 decided by MACT, Panchkula (for short “Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No.119 of 2008 in a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act’) vide which a sum of Rs.1,67,750/- has been awarded as compensation to claimant along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum due to injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving Bus bearing No.PB08-AK-4141 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 3. From the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:- “i. Whether petitioner Gauri Verma had suffered injuries in a vehicular accident that took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Bus bearing registration No.PB08-AK-4141 by the respondent No.1 as alleged? OPP ii. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP iii. Whether respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on date of accident, if so to what effect? OPR-3. iv. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and on going through the material PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -3- on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,67,750/- as compensation to the claimant on account of injuries suffered by her alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. 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 occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing No.PB08-AK-4141, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. 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. 8. 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 claimant had suffered disability in her eye and she has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,67,750/- for pain and sufferings, permanent disability, expenses incurred on treatment, transportation, in engaging an attendant, special diet, loss of income and loss of amenities. Learned counsel further argued that on account of PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -4- disability suffered by her, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has also not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has relied upon 2024 SCC Online Mad 6044 Jayasri Vs. Ravi Kumar and ors., (2010) SCC Online 346 Kadamba Transport Corporation Ltd Vs. Suchita Furtado and ors., (2013) SCC Online P&H 9252 Dr. Jaswinder Vs. Union of India, (2023) 3 SCC 439 Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and anr., (2022) SCC Online SC 1701 Mohd. Sabeer alias Shabir Hussain Vs. Regional Manager UP State Road Transport Corporation, (2011) 10 SCC 683 Govind Yadav Vs. New India Insurance Company Limited, (2022) 13 SCC 790 Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Ors. and 2025 SCC Online SC 29 Atul Tiwari Vs. Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 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. 10. 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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -5- 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. 11. 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 food and miscellaneous expenditure. (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 PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -6- (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. 12. Stand of claimant in the pleadings and while leading evidence while appearing in the witness-box as PW2 is that she had suffered multiple injuries and disability in her eye and had spent huge amount on her treatment. She was living in Bahrain and used to teach in a school and earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal after going through the evidence led on file awarded her a total compensation of Rs.1,67,750/-, which is held as under:- “12. PW-2 Gauri Verma deposed that at the time of accident she was living in Bahrain and was teaching in a school there and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month; that she had obtained B.Ed degree from Bahrain in the year 2000-01. She stated that she had no proof regarding her PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -7- income of Rs.10,000/- per month. She produced bills Ex.P-6, Ex.P-15 to Ex.P-37. 13. PW1 Gauri Verma stated that she spent Rs.76,962/- on her treatment and Rs.18,160/- on transportation from Chandigarh to Delhi and Rs.30,000/- on special diet. Vide bill Ex.P-6, Ex.P-7, Ex.P-15 to Ex.P-37, the petitioner spent a sum of Rs.72,723/- on her treatment medicines tests, etc. She has placed upon record her two photographs one taken sometimes before the accident and the other taken after the accident. No evidence about loss of vision or double vision has been brought. No scar or disfiguration is visible though there is marked change in the physical facial appearance which constitutes permanent loss of aesthetic value which is not likely to heel or vanish. Railway tickets produced by the petitioner are in respect of male 69 years old and female 31 years old from Amritsar to New Delhi and it has not been proved who traveled on these tickets. Since the petitioner got treatment from jalandhar, Chandigarh and New Delhi, she must have spent some amount on transportation. 14. The petitioner has remained under treatment at Delhi and Chandigarh as shown by hospital record. She was initially treated at Jalandhar. She was operated upon twice. She must have spent good amount on medicines, transportation, special diet, etc. She must have undergone lot of pain and agony during her hospitalization, operations and post operative treatment. 15. In the totality of these circumstances, I allow compensation to petitioner Gauri Verma as under:- For suffering pain and agony Rs. 20,000/- For Permanent Disability Rs. 30,000/- For hospital charges : Rs. 72,723/- Medicines, clinical tests, etc. PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -8- For transportation (lumpsum): Rs. 15,000/- For attendant, special diet : Etc. Rs. 10,000/- For loss of income Rs. 10,000/- For loss of enjoyment of life. : Rs. 10,000/- Total : Rs. 1,67,723/- 16. I round of the figure to Rs. 1,67,750/-. This is just and reasonable compensation and as such, I allow Rss. 1.67,750/- to the petitioner as total compensation on all counts.” 13. In order to prove her injuries, claimant has examined PW4- Dr. Inderpreet Singh, Senior Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, PGI, Chandigarh who produced the treatment record and deposed that patient Gauri was brought in the OPD with alleged history of accident while travelling in a bus on 01.09.2006. She complained of double vision. At presentation, her vision in both eyes were 6/9. She had restriction of eye movements in upward and downward direction. Her X-ray orbit suggested fracture of lower orbit. However, on CT Records, no fracture was noted. On forced duction test, there was evidence of inferior muscle entrapment. A provisional diagnosis of blow out fracture of right orbit was made. She was advised a repeat CT Scan of the orbit to look for any evidence of muscle entrapment and he tendered the photocopy of the record as Ex.P39. 14. PW5-Dr. Gagan Bhatia, Sr. Resident, Department of Ophthalmology, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi has also been examined, where the claimant was treated and he deposed as under:- PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -9- “I have brought the summoned/medical record of Gauri Verma wife of Arvind Verma, resident of House No.875, Sector 2, Panchkula. As per record, she was admitted on dated 13.09.2006 as indoor patient under Day Care Category and before admitting her, she was examined one day in advance I.e. 12.9.2006. Her face and features got disfigured due to this accident. She is suffering from the problem of double vision due to this accident. There is a depression of right eye ball and right eye looks little smaller. As per the record, she is suffering from multiple fracture of nasal bones and fractures of the orbital margin of right eye. As she was having double vision (so called diplopia) from right eye, so she is unable to lift the right upper eye lid and also eye ball. As per the record, after thorough examination by the Eye Specialist, she was advised surgery repair of the floor of the orbit by oculoplastic Surgeon at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital New Delhi. She was operated upon 13.9.2006 and floor of the orbit repaired by fixing implant by Eye Surgeon and fracture of the nasal bones set by plastic surgeon. Artificial implant just below the right eye was put to bring the eye ball to correct position since it had been dislocated due to injuries. She is still under the follow up treatment. Lastly, I examined her on 27.03.2009 at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi. As per the record, there is inability to move the right eye upward and there is double vision in looking up. Even the bone below the right orbit is also broken. Due to this accident, there is permanent distinct scar on her face and nasal bridge depression and double vision. Diplomia means double vision. It is true that receipt of Rs.4,100/- dated 12.9.2006 bearing No.58912 was issued by our hospital for CT Scan which is Ex.P-15. Ex.P-16 amounting to Rs.10,000/-, Ex.P-17 amounting to PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -10- Rs.48,283/-, Ex.P-18 amounting to Rs.110/-, Ex.P-19 amounting to Rs.2,600/-, Ex.P-20 amounting to Rs.2,400/-, Ex.P-21 amounting to Rs.20.10p, Ex.P-22 amounting to Rs.530/-, Ex.P-23 amounting to Rs.58,283/- were issued by our hospital. Ex.P-38 photograph of Gauri Verma and I recognize the same. The disfigurement is for life and is permanent. Due to some permanent damage to eye muscle becauseof the accident, there is permanent inability to move the eye ball properly leading to double vision. Lastly, she has been examined on 27.03.2009. Xxxx by Shri Kapil Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. The patient was admitted as indoor patient. The hospitalisation of the patient was for one day and was referred by the PGI. I have examined the patient. Dr. A.K.Grover is the Senior of our team. She has permanent double vision in up gaze. There is no disability to the patient while seeing straight and down. She is 100% permanent disabled while seeing upward. For example if a normal person is looking up at one single object, he will see only one object but she is seeing two copies of the same object. Receipts are issued always for all payments made by the patient. It is correct that as per our record, the patient is a house wife. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.” 15. As such, from the statement of PW-5, it is established that the face and features of the claimant had got disfigured due to this accident and she is suffering diplopia i.e. double vision from right eye. There is a depression of right eyeball and right eye looks little smaller. She had also suffered multiple fractures of nasal bones and fracture of orbital margin of right eye. Due to diplopia, she is unable to lift the right PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -11- upper eyelid and eyeball. Thereafter, surgery was performed for repair of floor of orbit and she was operated upon on 13.09.2006 and floor of the orbit was repaired by fixing implant by Eye Surgeon and fracture of nasal bones were set by plastic surgery. Artificial implant just below the right eye was put to bring the eyeball to correct position since it had been dislocated due to the injuries. After the treatment, she is unable to move the right eye upward and there is double vision while looking upwards. The bone below the right orbit was also broken and as per his testimony, there is permanent distinct scar on her face and nasal bridge depression and double vision. However, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, which is grossly inadequate. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and such injuries take a considerable time to heal. Taking into consideration the severity of injuries and the fact that she had suffered nasal fractures and fractures in orbit region, which were operated upon and now, she has double vision and her face has also got disfigured, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs. 60,000/- on account of pain and sufferings. 16. The claimant is suffering from diplopia i.e. double vision whenever she looks upward and she has a normal vision while seeing straight and downwards, as also stated by PW5. The claimant claims that she was a Teacher. No permanent disability has been got assessed by the claimant from the Medical Board but as per testimony of PW5, she has double vision whenever she looks upward and this PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -12- disability will remain with her throughout her life but it will certainly not impact her earning capability and in view of permanent disability, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to her as compensation, which is enhanced to Rs.75,000/- 17. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.72,723/- for the expenses incurred on treatment as per the bills produced by the claimant. However, it is a matter of common knowledge that patient and their attendants generally do not preserve all the bills and some amount of guesswork has to be applied while assessing the expenses incurred on treatment and besides this, she may have to incur some more expenses on her future treatment as well and she is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.85,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment. 18. Claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- on account of transportation and besides this, she has also been awarded Rs.10,000/- for engaging an attendant and on special diet, which in my opinion is adequate and no enhancement in the same is called for. 19. Claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income. She stated that she was working in Bahrain and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month but no evidence was led to prove this fact. The accident had taken place on 01.09.2006 and it can be assumed that claimant must have been earning at least Rs.6,000/- per month. It must have taken at least four months for the injuries to heal. During this period, she would not have been able to earn anything and accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -13- during the treatment. 20. The disability suffered by the claimant will remain with her throughout her life. She is going to suffer diplopia for the entire life while looking upwards and her face has also got a permanent scar and nasal bridge depression. Accordingly, she is held entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- for loss of enjoyment of life and amenities as against Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 21. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid is assessed as under:- Sr. No. Head of Compensation Compensation Assessed by this Court (₹) 1. Pain and Sufferings Rs.60,000/- 2. Expenses Incurred on Treatment Rs.85,000/- 3. Loss of Income during the treatment Rs.25,000/- 4. Special Diet, Attendant Charges and Transportation Charges Rs.25,000/- 5. Loss of enjoyment of life and amenities Rs. 50,000/- 6. Permanent disability Rs.75,000/- Total Rs.3,20,000/- 22. As a result of aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.1,52,250/- (Rs.3,20,000/- - Rs.1,67,750/-) which is rounded off to Rs.1,52,000/- over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e.26.07.2007, till realization. 23. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-4794-2010(O&M) -14- 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. 24. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. 01.08.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) Priyanka Thakur JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No PRIYANKA THAKUR 2026.08.01 17:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document