IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-1751-2024 (O&M) Rajdeep Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Rakesh Kumar and another . . . . 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. Bhavyadeep Walia, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** 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 learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala vide award dated 23.11.2023. By the said award, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and awarded compensation of ₹10,11,800/- along with interest @7.5% per annum on account of injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor vehicular accident. 2. Briefly stated, the claimant, who was about 18 years of age, suffered grievous injuries in a road accident, which took place on 25.10.2018. While he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle being driven by his father, the offending truck bearing registration No. HR-37D-5190, driven in a rash and negligent manner, struck the motorcycle from behind, resulting in the claimant sustaining multiple injuries. His left hand was crushed beneath the front tyre of the offending vehicle. Initially treated at Government Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, he was thereafter shifted to PGIMER, Chandigarh where he VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 remained admitted from 25.10.2018 to 29.11.2018 and ultimately underwent amputation of his left hand. 3. Claim petition was contested by the respondents. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred solely on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The vehicle was admittedly insured with respondent No.2 and, accordingly, both respondents were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award. 4. The above findings have attained finality as neither negligence nor liability has been questioned before this Court. 5. While assessing compensation, the Tribunal accepted the disability certificate showing permanent physical disability to the extent of 56%. Having regard to the nature of avocation of the claimant, namely electrician and welder, and the fact that his left hand had been amputated, the Tribunal assessed the functional disability at 50%. Since there was no reliable evidence regarding actual income, the monthly income was assessed on the basis of minimum wages payable to an unskilled labourer in the State of Punjab, i.e. ₹8,077.71 per month. Applying multiplier of 18, the Tribunal awarded ₹8,72,392/- towards loss of future earning capacity besides medical expenses of ₹1,09,398/-, ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹10,000/- towards special diet, aggregating to ₹10,11,800/-. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding negligence, monthly income and assessment of functional disability are not under challenge. The grievance is confined to the quantum of compensation. 7. Assailing the award on aspect of quantum of compensation, it is contended that the Tribunal has committed a patent error in omitting to award any addition towards future prospects while computing loss of future earning capacity, though the claimant was only 18 years of age and had suffered permanent disability affecting his earning capacity throughout life. It is argued that the law is now well settled by the Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, as VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 subsequently explained in Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 and Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., 2020 10 Online SC 601, that future prospects are equally applicable in cases of permanent disability where compensation is awarded for future loss of earning capacity. 8. Learned counsel further submits that the amounts awarded under the non-pecuniary heads are wholly unrealistic. It is argued that the claimant has suffered amputation of an upper limb at a very young age, resulting not merely in economic loss but in permanent deprivation of normal enjoyment of life. The Tribunal has awarded only ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹10,000/- towards special diet without awarding any amount whatsoever towards loss of amenities of life, permanent disfigurement, attendant charges, conveyance, loss of marriage prospects, inconvenience, hardship, disappointment, frustration and loss of expectation of life. It is submitted that the award under these heads is contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343; Jagdish v. Mohan (supra); Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (2020) 4 SCC 413 and Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company supports the award and submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair and reasonable. According to him, the Tribunal has already adopted a liberal approach by assessing functional disability at 50% despite medical disability being assessed at 56%. It is contended that the compensation awarded does not warrant any interference. 10. This court has considered rival submissions of both sides and has perused the record. 11. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it deserves notice that the scope of the present appeal is extremely limited. The findings regarding rash and negligent driving, liability of the insurer, assessment of monthly income and determination of functional disability have not been assailed by either party. Consequently, this Court is required to examine only whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal satisfies the statutory requirement of VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 awarding "just compensation" within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Re: Entitlement to Future Prospects : 12. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal was justified in computing the loss of future earning capacity without making any addition towards future prospects. 13. The answer, in the considered opinion of this Court, has to be in the negative. Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a statutory obligation upon the Claims Tribunal as well as the appellate Court to determine an amount which constitutes "just compensation". The expression "just compensation" has deliberately not been defined by the Legislature, thereby leaving sufficient flexibility with the Courts to ensure that the victim is compensated for the actual pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss suffered on account of the accident. The endeavour of the Court is not to award a windfall, nor to adopt a parsimonious approach, but to place the injured, as far as money can do, in the position in which he would have been had the accident not occurred. 14. In the present case, the claimant was barely 18 years of age when he suffered permanent amputation of his left hand. The Tribunal accepted that the disability certificate reflected 56% permanent disability and, having regard to his vocation as an electrician/welder, rightly assessed the functional disability at 50%. The Tribunal also adopted multiplier '18'. However, while computing the future loss of earning capacity, the Tribunal omitted to add any amount towards future prospects. 15. The omission is contrary to the settled principles governing assessment of compensation. The Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi (supra) while considering determination of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, authoritatively held that future prospects form an indispensable component of the computation of loss of dependency. The Court observed that increase in income over a period of time is a normal incidence of human life and, therefore, the law cannot ignore future advancement while determining VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 just compensation. In the case of self-employed persons and those earning fixed wages below the age of forty years, addition of 40% towards future prospects was directed. 16. Though Pranay Sethi arose out of death claims, the underlying principle is that compensation should reflect realistic future economic loss. There is nothing in the judgment to indicate that a person who survives with permanent disability should be placed in a less favourable position than the dependents of a deceased victim. On the contrary, denial of future prospects in cases of permanent disability would defeat the very concept of "just compensation". 17. This question no longer remains res integra. In Jagdish v. Mohan, (supra), the claimant, a young carpenter, had suffered amputation of both arms. The Supreme Court held that while assessing future loss of earning capacity in cases of permanent disability, the principle of future prospects laid down in Pranay Sethi is equally applicable. The Court observed that the injured victim continues to live with the disability throughout his life and the loss of future earning capacity must necessarily take into account the normal increase in income which he would have earned had the accident not intervened. Accordingly, addition of 40% towards future prospects was granted. 18. The principle was reiterated in Erudhaya Priya v. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., (supra). The Supreme Court held that while assessing compensation in injury cases involving permanent disability, the computation of future loss of income cannot be made without granting future prospects in terms of Pranay Sethi. The Court observed that the rationale underlying future prospects applies equally where the earning capacity of the injured stands permanently impaired. 19. Again, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand, (supra), while dealing with a case of catastrophic permanent disability suffered by a child, the Supreme Court emphasised that compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act must be realistic and liberal enough to ensure that the victim is adequately compensated for lifelong deprivation. The Court reiterated that the principles evolved in Pranay VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 Sethi are equally relevant while assessing future economic loss in disability cases. 20. Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently followed the aforesaid line of reasoning in recent decisions and there is now complete judicial consensus that once compensation is being computed on the basis of future loss of earning capacity, future prospects cannot ordinarily be denied merely because the victim has survived. 21. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the claimant was merely 18 years of age at the time of accident. The Tribunal itself found that because of amputation of his left hand, his earning capacity stood permanently impaired to the extent of 50%. There is no reason to assume that had the accident not occurred, his income would have remained static throughout his working life. Like every other young workman, he too would have gained experience, skill and better remuneration with advancement in age. 22. The denial of future prospects, therefore, results in under- compensation. 23. Learned counsel appearing for the insurer has not been able to point out any legal principle which would justify exclusion of future prospects in the facts of the present case. Once the Tribunal has accepted permanent loss of future earning capacity and has applied the multiplier method, addition towards future prospects necessarily follows in view of the binding precedents noticed above. 24. Consequently, this Court holds that the appellant is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects over the monthly income assessed by the Tribunal. The loss of future earning capacity shall accordingly be recomputed by adding 40% to the monthly income before applying the multiplier of 18 and thereafter applying the accepted functional disability of 50%. Re: Adequacy of Compensation under Non-Pecuniary Heads : VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 25. The next question which arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded under the conventional and non-pecuniary heads satisfies the requirement of "just compensation". 26. The Tribunal has awarded only ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹10,000/- towards special diet. No amount whatsoever has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life, permanent disfigurement, attendant charges, conveyance, inconvenience, hardship, mental agony or loss of marriage prospects. 27. The approach adopted by the Tribunal, in the opinion of this Court, is inconsistent with the principles repeatedly laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court exhaustively considered the principles governing assessment of compensation in injury cases. The Court observed that compensation for permanent disability is not confined merely to loss of earning capacity. An injured victim is entitled to be compensated separately under different heads, including:  pain, shock and suffering;  medical expenses;  future medical treatment;  attendant charges;  conveyance and special diet;  loss of earning during treatment;  future loss of earning capacity;  loss of amenities and enjoyment of life;  loss of expectation of life wherever applicable; and  inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress resulting from permanent disability. The Supreme Court emphasized that each of these heads represents a distinct consequence flowing from the injury and none can be ignored merely because compensation has been awarded under another head. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 28. The distinction assumes greater implication in cases involving amputation of a limb. Compensation awarded towards future loss of earning capacity reimburses the economic consequences of the disability. It does not compensate the victim for the lifelong deprivation of ordinary pleasures of life, social interaction, recreational activities, psychological trauma, loss of confidence, dependence upon others and the inability to perform routine functions in the manner he could prior to the accident. 29. In Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Company Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389, the claimant, a young actress, suffered permanent facial disfigurement. The Supreme Court observed that permanent disability cannot be evaluated merely from the perspective of percentage of physical impairment. The real impact upon the quality of life, dignity, social interaction, professional prospects and psychological well-being must also receive due weight while determining just compensation. The Court substantially enhanced compensation under the non-pecuniary heads by observing that permanent disfigurement leaves lifelong scars which cannot be measured solely in monetary terms. 30. Similar observations were made in Jagdish v. Mohan, (supra). While dealing with amputation of both arms of a young carpenter, the Supreme Court observed that permanent disability affects every sphere of human existence. The injured is required to live throughout his life with physical limitations, emotional distress and dependence upon others. The Court, therefore, substantially enhanced compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of amenities and attendant charges, holding that a token award under these heads would fail to achieve the object of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 31. Again, in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that in cases involving permanent disability, the Courts must adopt a broad and humane approach. The object of awarding compensation is not merely to reimburse expenses already incurred but also to secure the future life of the victim with dignity. The Court observed that while pecuniary losses VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 can be mathematically computed, non-pecuniary damages necessarily involve a reasonable estimate based upon the facts of each case. 32. The cumulative effect of these authorities leaves no room for doubt that where permanent disability has deprived the victim of normal enjoyment of life, compensation under the non-pecuniary heads cannot be awarded in a symbolic or token manner. Loss of Amenities of Life 33. In the present case, the claimant has suffered permanent amputation of his left hand. The photographs placed on record clearly demonstrate the nature of the disability, and the Tribunal itself observed that because of the amputation, he would not be able to perform labour work in the manner he was doing prior to the accident. 34. However, the consequences of such disability extend far beyond loss of earning capacity. An upper limb is indispensable for almost every activity of daily living. Its permanent loss inevitably affects personal independence, mobility, self-care, participation in social and recreational activities, driving, sports, household work and numerous ordinary functions which constitute the normal enjoyment of life. Such deprivation continues throughout the remaining life of the victim. 35. In the opinion of this Court, failure of the Tribunal to award any compensation towards loss of amenities of life is contrary to the law declared in Raj Kumar, Jagdish and Kajal (supra). Permanent Disfigurement : 36. Permanent amputation of an upper limb is also accompanied by visible disfigurement. Physical disfigurement has psychological and social consequences independent of the economic disability. It affects confidence, self-esteem, social acceptance and emotional well-being. The Supreme Court in Rekha Jain (supra) has recognised permanent disfigurement as a distinct head requiring separate compensation wherever justified by the facts of the case. The claimant, therefore, deserves independent compensation under this head as well. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 Loss of Marriage Prospects : 37. Learned counsel for the appellant has also contended that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards loss of marriage prospects. 38. The submission deserves acceptance. The claimant was merely 18 years of age when the accident occurred. At that stage of life, permanent amputation of an upper limb undoubtedly has a bearing upon matrimonial prospects. Marriage is not merely a social institution but also an important facet of personal life. Permanent disability of the nature suffered by the claimant may substantially diminish the prospects of marriage and may also affect the quality of matrimonial life thereafter. 39. Though there is no separate schedule prescribing compensation under this head, Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that while awarding just compensation, the Court is required to compensate every real consequence flowing from the injury. 40. Having regard to the age of the claimant, the permanent nature of the disability and the obvious impact upon his future life, this Court is of the considered view that reasonable compensation deserves to be awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. Attendant Charges and Conveyance : 41. The discharge summary shows that the claimant remained admitted in PGIMER, Chandigarh for more than one month and underwent surgical treatment culminating in amputation of his left hand. 42. It is inconceivable that a young patient, who had undergone such major surgery would not have required the assistance of an attendant during hospitalization and thereafter during the recovery period. Likewise, repeated visits to the hospital for follow-up treatment necessarily involve expenditure on transportation. 43. The Tribunal awarded only ₹10,000/- towards special diet and miscellaneous expenses without separately considering attendant charges or conveyance. Such omission has resulted in under-assessment of compensation. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 44. It is well settled that strict documentary proof of expenditure under these heads cannot always be insisted upon. Courts are expected to award reasonable compensation on the basis of the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and surrounding circumstances. 45. Accordingly, the claimant is also entitled to reasonable compensation towards attendant charges and conveyance. Enhanced Pain and Suffering : 46. Lastly, this Court finds that award of only ₹20,000/- towards pain and suffering is wholly inadequate. The claimant suffered crushing injuries, remained hospitalized for more than a month, underwent amputation of his left hand and has been left permanently disabled for the remainder of his life. 47. Pain and suffering in such cases is not confined merely to physical pain during hospitalization but also includes prolonged mental trauma, emotional distress and lifelong psychological consequences. The amount awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, deserves substantial enhancement. Re-computation of Compensation 48. In view of the foregoing discussion, the compensation payable to the appellant is re-computed as under:- Sr. N: Head of Compensation Amount (₹) 1 Medical expenses 1,09,398/- 2 Loss of future earning capacity (after addition of 40% future prospects) [8,077.71 x 12 x 140 % x 18] / 50 12,21,350/- 3 Pain and suffering 50,000/- 4 Loss of amenities of life 1,00,000/- 5 Loss of marriage prospects 1,00,000/- 6 Permanent disfigurement 1,00,000/- 7 Attendant charges 50,000/- 8 Special diet 15,000/- 9 Conveyance 15,000/- Total Compensation 17,60,748/- VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-1751-2024 2026:PHHC:107934 Already awarded by tribunal 10,11,800/- Enhanced Compensation 7,48,948/- 49. Thus, the appellant shall be entitled to total compensation of ₹17,60,748/-, as against ₹10,11,800/- awarded by the Tribunal. Consequently, the enhanced compensation comes to ₹7,48,948/-, which is rounded of to ₹ 7,49,000/- 50. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala is modified to the aforesaid extent. 51. The appellant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹7,49,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal, namely 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. 52. The liability to satisfy the award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal. Respondent No.2–Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount, after adjusting the amount, if any, already paid, before the learned Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 53. Upon deposit, the learned Tribunal shall release the amount to the appellant by transferring the same directly into his bank account through RTGS/NEFT after due verification of identity and subject to adjustment of any amount already disbursed. 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 18:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document