IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-6686-2023 (O&M) Pardeep . . . . Appellant Vs. Om Parkash and others . . . . Respondents **** Reserved on:05.08.2026 Pronounced on: 07.08.2026 Pronounced Fully/Operative Part: Fully **** CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA **** Present: - Mr. Bhim Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Imran Ahmed Ali, Advocate, for respondent No.3-Insurance Company [through VC] **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram vide award dated 07.07.2023. 2. The findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as well as qua the liability fastened upon the insurer have not been questioned by any of the respondents. Consequently, the controversy in the present appeal is confined only to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed manifest error in reducing the monthly income of the claimant from ₹22,825/- as reflected in the salary certificate to ₹22,000/- without any legal basis. It is further argued that the claimant suffered amputation below the left knee and the Medical Board assessed permanent disability at 70% of the left lower limb. Nevertheless, the Tribunal, without VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6686-2023 2026:PHHC:107927 assigning any cogent reason, reduced the functional disability to 35% of the whole body. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2023 SC 186. It is further contended that although evidence regarding purchase of an artificial limb was led, no compensation has been awarded towards future replacement and maintenance thereof. Lastly, it is argued that compensation under the conventional heads deserves suitable enhancement. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after examining the record, this Court finds merit in the appeal. Income: 5. The Tribunal noticed the salary slip (Mark F) showing monthly salary of ₹22,825/- but nevertheless assessed the income at ₹22,000/- merely by approximation. 6. Once documentary evidence regarding actual salary is available and its genuineness has neither been disputed nor rebutted by the respondents, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to substitute the proved income with an estimated figure. Compensation under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act has to be based upon reliable evidence and cannot be determined on conjectures. Accordingly, the monthly income deserves to be taken as ₹22,825/. Functional disability: 7. The material question relates to assessment of functional disability. The Medical Board, Jhajjar issued Disability Certificate Ex.P3 certifying 70% permanent disability on account of amputation of the left lower limb, and PW-8 Dr. Parminder, Civil Hospital, Jhajjar duly proved the same. 8. The Tribunal, however, held that the disability affecting earning capacity should be treated as only 35%, observing that disability of the limb translated into 35% disability of the whole body. No medical evidence or legal principle has been referred to in support of this conclusion. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6686-2023 2026:PHHC:107927 9. The approach adopted by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The law is well settled that physical disability and functional disability are not synonymous. Functional disability has to be assessed with reference to the nature of avocation and the extent to which the injury impairs earning capacity. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court authoritatively held that assessment of compensation in injury cases must be based upon the actual loss of earning capacity and not merely on the percentage of physical disability certified by the Medical Board. 10. The same principle has recently been reiterated in Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain v. Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, AIR 2023 SC 186, wherein the claimant had suffered amputation of a lower limb. The Supreme Court observed that amputation of a leg has far- reaching consequences on mobility, employability and earning capacity and that the functional disability must be assessed keeping in view the nature of employment and practical impact of the injury rather than by mechanically reducing the percentage of physical disability. 11. The claimant in the present case was employed as an ERT Executive/Security employee with Pro-align Security and was required to remain physically active while discharging his duties. Such employment necessarily requires standing, walking, movement and physical agility. Amputation below the knee permanently deprives the claimant of normal mobility. Even with the aid of a prosthesis, he cannot be expected to perform his duties with the same efficiency as before the accident. His employment opportunities stand substantially curtailed and his future earning potential has been seriously impaired. 12. Having regard to the nature of employment, age of the claimant, extent of disability certified by the Medical Board and the principles laid down in Raj Kumar (supra) and Mohd. Sabeer (supra), this Court is satisfied that assessment of functional disability at 35% is wholly unrealistic and arbitrary. 13. In the facts of the present case, the functional disability deserves to be assessed at 70%. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6686-2023 2026:PHHC:107927 Artificial limb: 14. Another glaring omission in the award is that no compensation whatsoever has been granted towards future expenditure on artificial limb. PW-2 Rakesh Kumar, Proprietor of Paras Artificial Limb Centre, specifically proved that the claimant had purchased an artificial limb and paid ₹1,31,250/-, supported by Bill Ex.P2. Despite recording this evidence, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards future replacement or maintenance. 15. An artificial limb is not a one-time expenditure. Prosthetic limbs require periodic replacement because of wear and tear and technological advancement. The injured claimant is also required to incur expenditure on maintenance, repairs and refitting throughout his lifetime. 16. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274, and Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571, the Supreme Court held that compensation in injury cases should adequately provide for rehabilitation and future medical expenses so as to enable the injured to live with dignity. 17. Consequently, the claimant deserves separate compensation towards future replacement and maintenance of the artificial limb. In the absence of precise evidence regarding future expenditure, a reasonable lump sum deserves to be awarded under this head. Conventional heads: 18. The Tribunal awarded only ₹75,000/- jointly towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. The claimant remained hospitalized for nearly one month, underwent amputation of his left leg below the knee and has been rendered permanently disabled for the rest of his life. The consequences of such injury are lifelong. Apart from physical pain, the claimant has suffered permanent loss of mobility, loss of amenities of life, mental trauma, diminished prospects in employment and social inconvenience. 19. In Jagdish v. Mohan (supra) and Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413, the Supreme Court emphasized that non-pecuniary damages in cases of permanent disability should be realistic and not merely symbolic. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6686-2023 2026:PHHC:107927 20. The amount awarded under the conventional heads, therefore, deserves suitable enhancement. 21. In view of above discussion, compensation payable to appellant is re-worked out as under: Sr. No. Head of Compensation Tribunal Award Modified by this Court 1. Monthly Income ₹22,000/- ₹22,825/- 2. Future Prospects 40% 40% (maintained) 3. Monthly Income after Future Prospects ₹30,800/- ₹31,955/- 4. Functional Disability 35% 70% 5. Monthly Loss of Income ₹10,780/- ₹22,368.50 6. Annual Loss of Income ₹1,29,360/- ₹2,68,422/- 7. Multiplier 17 17 8. Loss of Future Earning Capacity ₹21,99,120/- ₹45,63,174/- 9. Medical Expenses ₹7,01,029/- ₹7,01,029/- 10. Cost of Artificial Limb already purchased Nil ₹1,31,250/- (Ex.P2) 11. Future Replacement/Maintenance of Artificial Limb Nil ₹ 1,00,000/- 12. Pain and Suffering ₹75,000/- ₹1,00,000/- 13. Loss of Amenities of Life Nil ₹1,00,000/- 14. Special Diet ₹20,000/- ₹20,000/- 15. Attendant Charges Nil ₹50,000/- 16. Transportation Nil ₹25,000/- Total Compensation ₹29,95,000/- ₹57,90,453/- 22. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The award dated 07.07.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram is modified to the extent indicated hereinabove. 23. The compensation payable to the appellant-claimant is re-assessed at ₹57,90,453/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Lakhs Ninety Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Three only) as against ₹29,95,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the claimant shall be entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹27,95,453/-. 24. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 % per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual realization. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-6686-2023 2026:PHHC:107927 25. The enhanced compensation shall be deposited by respondent No.3–Insurance Company before the Tribunal within 4 weeks. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the amount to the claimant after due verification of his identity. Keeping in view the age of the claimant and the nature of permanent disability suffered by him, the Tribunal shall disburse the enhanced amount in such manner as it may deem appropriate, having regard to the principles governing protection of compensation awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act. 26. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) 07.08.2026 JUDGE Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No Uploaded on: 07.08.2026 VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document