FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1. HARJINDER SINGH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents 1. The date when the judgment was reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the 4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants in FAO for respondent No.1 in FAO Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent and for the appellant (in FAO HARKESH MANUJA, J. CM-4979-CII-2019 IN This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal. Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of r Company did not 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH HARJINDER SINGH JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents AND THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for the appellants in FAO-1651-2019 and for respondent No.1 in FAO-4673-2018. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the respondent- Insurance Company in FAO and for the appellant (in FAO-4673-2018). ***** HARKESH MANUJA, J. 2019 IN FAO-1651-2019 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of r not choose to file reply to the application. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) …Appellant JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ….Appellant HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents 23.02.2026 27.03.2026 judgment is uploaded on the website 27.03.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced. Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment Not applicable. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA 2019 and 2018. urance Company in FAO-1651-2019 2018). This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance the application. 1 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in Insurance MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in fil hereby condoned. MAIN CASE 1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be reduced (FAO-1651 injuries suffered by occurred on 01.01.2016 2. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. 20,50,140/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the appeals, involving challeng taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO 1651-2019 for reference. FACTS 3. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in fil hereby condoned. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be 1651-2019 & FAO-4673-2018 injuries suffered by Harjinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident which 01.01.2016. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the appeals, involving challenge to the quantum of compensation, are thus, taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO 2019 for reference. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered 2 Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in filing the present appeal is Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be respectively), on account of Singh in a motor vehicular accident which The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the e to the quantum of compensation, are thus, taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO- The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered 2 Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit, ing the present appeal is Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be respectively), on account of Singh in a motor vehicular accident which The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs. as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the e to the quantum of compensation, are thus, - The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while alleging rash and negligent driv 23-D-5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same. 4. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03. passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal wa commensurate with the injuries suffered, the per suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, filed quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an calling for reduction of the award. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed b wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred in applying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while alleging rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. PB 5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending vehicle to be negligent in driving the same. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03. passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred seeking enhancement of compensation warded by the learned Tribunal was wholly inadequate and not with the injuries suffered, the per suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance Company, on the other hand, filed FAO- quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding an excessive amount under various heads, thereby calling for reduction of the award. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/CLAIMANT. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed b wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further 3 by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while ing of vehicle bearing registration No. PB- 5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred FAO-1651- seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the s wholly inadequate and not with the injuries suffered, the period of treatment, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance -4673-2018 challenging the quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal excessive amount under various heads, thereby ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal was wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further 3 by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while - 5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues on record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending 2018 - on the ground that the s wholly inadequate and not iod of treatment, pain and suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance challenging the quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal excessive amount under various heads, thereby ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the y the learned Tribunal was wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses, which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the compensation awarded under various heads, including pai attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the nature, extent and lifelong impact who was rendered completely principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in misca of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced along with appropriate rate of interest. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was contended that the learned Tribun appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurren argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability, subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW possibility of improvement. appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses, which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the compensation awarded under various heads, including pai attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the nature, extent and lifelong impact of the injuries suffered by the claimant, who was rendered completely dependent. Placing reliance upon settled principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in misca of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced along with appropriate rate of interest. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurren argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability, subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW possibility of improvement. Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post 4 committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses, which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the compensation awarded under various heads, including pain and suffering, attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the of the injuries suffered by the claimant, dependent. Placing reliance upon settled principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non- pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in miscarriage of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was al erroneously fastened liability upon the appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurrence. He further argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability, subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW-4 indicated Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post-accident, as 4 committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses, which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the n and suffering, attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the of the injuries suffered by the claimant, dependent. Placing reliance upon settled principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel - rriage of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was fastened liability upon the appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the ce. He further argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability, 4 indicated Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to accident, as MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) evident from salary slips, thereby negating earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensatio was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles, warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it. DISCUSSION AND REASONING 7. I have heard learned c book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. 8. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid d Apex Court. In “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” 1 SCC 343 the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is the following: Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitaliza transportation, (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which 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 (iv) Damages for pain injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) om salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensatio was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles, warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it. DISCUSSION AND REASONING I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries. “6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are Pecuniary damages (Special damages) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitaliza transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. Loss of earnings (and other gains) which made had he not been injured, comprising: Loss of earning during the period of treatment; Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. Future medical expenses. pecuniary damages (General Damages Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 5 the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensation was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles, and therefore warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it. ounsel for the parties and perused the paper- book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to own in similar cases by the Hon’ble “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” reported as (2011) the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to awarded in personal injury cases are Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: Loss of earning during the period of treatment; Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. pecuniary damages (General Damages) , suffering and trauma as a consequence of the Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). 5 the conclusion of total loss of n and therefore warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the - book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to own in similar cases by the Hon’ble (2011) the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to awarded in personal injury cases are tion, medicines, the injured would have , suffering and trauma as a consequence of the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) relating to loss of fu medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life”. ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” 9. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/ working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the appellant consonance with the statement of CW card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as Ex.PW3/C. The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as recorded by the learned Tribunal. However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant resumed employment post negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a limited or accommodated capacity, earning capacity to its pre of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impac on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties. 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under ds (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, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) 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”. ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/ working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed the monthly income of the appellant/claimant @ Rs. 18,268/ consonance with the statement of CW-3 who also proved on record identity card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as recorded by the learned Tribunal. However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant resumed employment post-accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a limited or accommodated capacity, cannot be equated with restoration of earning capacity to its pre-accident level. It is well settled that the concept of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impac on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties. 6 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi) ture earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/- per month by working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed /claimant @ Rs. 18,268/- per month, in 3 who also proved on record identity card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a cannot be equated with restoration of accident level. It is well settled that the concept of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impact of injuries on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties. 6 In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the (iii), (v) and (vi) ture earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 per month by working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed per month, in 3 who also proved on record identity card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a cannot be equated with restoration of accident level. It is well settled that the concept of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be t of injuries MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability, which would necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in the same manner or with the same efficiency as pri do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be made the sole basis to Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the Insurance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded. 9.1 Now, a perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant remained hospitalized from 01.01.2016 to income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is assessed as Rs. motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and the appellant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from the re-assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that the appellant/claimant is suffering from 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability, necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in the same manner or with the same efficiency as pri do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be made the sole basis to negate the loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the surance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded. perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant remained hospitalized from 01.01.2016 to 18.01.2016. income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is assessed as Rs. Rs. 10,960.8 (608.93 x 18). motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that the appellant/claimant is suffering from neurocognit 7 In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability, necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in the same manner or with the same efficiency as prior to the accident, nor do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be negate the loss of earning capacity. Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the surance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded. perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant 18.01.2016. Thus, the loss of income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is Rs. 10,960.8 (608.93 x 18). Further, it is evident that the motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that neurocognitive impairment in the 7 In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability, necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in or to the accident, nor do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant Thus, the loss of income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is Further, it is evident that the motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that ive impairment in the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury secondary personality changes disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability, with corrected visio found to be suffering from In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries, particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting me and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his ability to lead a normal l The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he did prior to the accident. Accordingly, this the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled principles governing assessment of functional disability vis capacity. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar” cases where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be awarded not also towards future prospects. 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury secondary personality changes. Although there is no gross locomotor disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability, with corrected vision of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been found to be suffering from bilateral sensorineural hearing loss In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries, particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting me and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his ability to lead a normal life and to effectively engage in gainful employment. The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he did prior to the accident. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled principles governing assessment of functional disability vis Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar” reported as where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be awarded not only for the future loss of income but also towards future prospects. 8 form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury, accompanied by . Although there is no gross locomotor disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability, n of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been bilateral sensorineural hearing loss. In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries, particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting memory, behaviour, and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his ife and to effectively engage in gainful employment. The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled principles governing assessment of functional disability vis-à-vis earning Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Pappu reported as 2020 INSC 553 held that in where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, only for the future loss of income but 8 , accompanied by . Although there is no gross locomotor disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability, n of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries, mory, behaviour, and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his ife and to effectively engage in gainful employment. The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled s earning “Pappu held that in where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, only for the future loss of income but MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) 9.2 A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claiman time of accident was more than 45 prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sethi” reported as conclusion in this rega “59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.” 9.3 In view of the above discussion, the appell the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4) per month for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the extent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/ 100/100). ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICA EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION” 10. In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the extent of 65%, which Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claiman time of accident was more than 45 years of age prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.3, which records the conclusion in this regard, reads as under:- “59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.” In view of the above discussion, the appell the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4) r month for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the ent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/ ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION” In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the %, which stands duly established Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW 9 A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claimant at the of age. The computation of future prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay para 59.3, which records the “59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.” In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant in addition to the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4) r month for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Accordingly, this Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the ent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/- (23,748.4 x 12 x 14 x L EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the established from the testimony of Dr. Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW-4. Furthermore, the 9 t at the computation of future prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay para 59.3, which records the “59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the ant/claimant in addition to the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4) Accordingly, this Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the (23,748.4 x 12 x 14 x L EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the . . Furthermore, the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) appellant/claimant has also proved on record med Ex.C4 to Ex.C53 towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical expenses were borne to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses. mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabili compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, 31,409/- yet in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation unde head is assessed as Rs. 1 10.1 As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon his wife and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech remains limited and largely self trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggre Chakroborty (CW extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such circumstances, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) appellant/claimant has also proved on record med Ex.C4 to Ex.C53, reflecting that an amount of Rs. 31,409/ towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical expenses were borne by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses. mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabili compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all laim/reimbursement purposes, though, total bills proved are for in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation unde head is assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/-. As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon e and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech remains limited and largely self-directed, and any interruption tends to trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggre Chakroborty (CW-4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the 10 appellant/claimant has also proved on record medical bills and receipts as reflecting that an amount of Rs. 31,409/- was incurred towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses. However, keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all though, total bills proved are for in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation under this As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon e and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self-care activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech directed, and any interruption tends to trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggression. Further, Dr. Subho 4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the 10 ical bills and receipts as was incurred towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled , keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and tation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all though, total bills proved are for r this As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon care activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech directed, and any interruption tends to Further, Dr. Subho 4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) appellant/claimant. award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS 11. For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospit mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under: “15. Keeping in view the above suffered, the ‘ the disability afflicted upon the claimant of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant under the head ‘ prayer of the claimant was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” 11.1 In light of the settled legal position enun Supreme Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained gri than that, Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) appellant/claimant. Accordingly, it is considered just and appropriate award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under this head. ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospit mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- “15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life the disability afflicted upon the claimant of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/ under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully consci prayer of the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” In light of the settled legal position enun Supreme Court in Muralidhar’s case (supra), the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries, Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board 11 Accordingly, it is considered just and appropriate to under this head. ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the referred judgments, the injuries ’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/- ’, fully conscious of the fact that the appellant for enhancement of compensation , we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble case (supra), and having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the evous injuries, including head injury . More Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board 11 to For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, pecuniary heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries alization, and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the referred judgments, the injuries of appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the - ous of the fact that the appellant for enhancement of compensation , we find the compensation to be ciated by the Hon’ble and having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the . More Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW disability of the appellant/claimant @ 65 opinion that an amount of Rs. 10 pain and sufferings. ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’ 12. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly the head injury followed by evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical supervision and is post-operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyanc attendant charges hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an attendant for day- heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under these heads is considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. CONCLUSION 13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner: S.No. Nature 1. Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW disability of the appellant/claimant @ 65%. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings. ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’ In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, particularly the head injury followed by prolonged post evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical supervision and is necessarily required to undergo regular follow operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyanc attendant charges. Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an -to-day activities, the compen heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 5 considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:- Nature Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8 12 PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW-4, proved on record the %. Thus, this Court is of the is awarded under the head of ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’ In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, prolonged post-operative care, it is evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical necessarily required to undergo regular follow-up and operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyance charges and Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an day activities, the compensation awarded under these heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the Amount (in Rs.) Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8) 40,00,692/- 12 4, proved on record the %. Thus, this Court is of the is awarded under the head of In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant, operative care, it is evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical up and operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate e charges and Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an sation awarded under these heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under , which is considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) 2. Medical Hospitalization 3. Compensation under other pecuniary head 4. Compensation under pain and sufferings Total Compensation Amount Awarded by Enhanced Amount QUESTION REGARDING NEGLIGENCE 14. The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the consistent testimony Singh, which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the pr any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay in registration of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In this regard, reference may be made Supreme Court in and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim petition if the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record. finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) Medical Expenses//Future medical expenses/ Hospitalization (Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000) Compensation under other pecuniary head Compensation under pain and sufferings Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount QUESTION REGARDING NEGLIGENCE The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the consistent testimony of the claimant as well as the eye , which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the pr any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record. finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus 13 /Future medical expenses/ (Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000) 6,00,000/- Compensation under other pecuniary head 5,00,000/- Compensation under pain and sufferings 10,00,000/- 61,00,692/- 20,50,140/- 40,50,552/- The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the of the claimant as well as the eye-witness Surmukh , which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, create any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In to the judgments of the Hon’ble Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 SCC 693 Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656, wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus 13 The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the Surmukh , which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the esent case, create any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In to the judgments of the Hon’ble , (2011) 4 SCC 693 , wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and the same does not call for any interferen 15. The grant of interest @ 6 view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that th the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. 16. Accordingly, the a 1651-2019, is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the quantum of compensation as assessed hereina filed at the instance of the appellant 2018, being devoid of 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. Th 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. The grant of interest @ 6% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimant , is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the ntum of compensation as assessed hereina filed at the instance of the appellant–Insurance Company, i.e. FAO , being devoid of merit, stands dismissed passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is modified to the extent indicated, and the claimant be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. Th 14 based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and ce by this Court. % per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and approved in a subsequent judgment “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. e amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. ppeal preferred by the claimant/injured, i.e. FAO- , is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the ntum of compensation as assessed hereinabove, whereas, the appeal Insurance Company, i.e. FAO-4673- merit, stands dismissed. The impugned award dated passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, ent indicated, and the claimant shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. The liability to satisfy the 14 based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and % per annum is not equitable and just in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and approved in a subsequent judgment “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today. e amount of compensation already paid to - , is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the the appeal - . The impugned award dated passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, shall be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in e liability to satisfy the MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt FAO-4673-2018 (O&M) & FAO-1651-2019 (O&M) award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. Pending miscellaneous 27.03.2026 sanjay Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 2018 (O&M) 2019 (O&M) award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether Reportable? 15 award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. , if any, shall also stand disposed of. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 15 award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. MOHMED ATIK 2026.03.27 19:01 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgmemtt