IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** FAO-5106-2024 (O&M) Jasbir Singh . . . . Appellant Vs. Nishan Singh 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. Kushagra Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant. Ms. Tanvi Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. It is claimant’s appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation amount by modifying the award dated 19.03.2024 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar. 2. It has not been disputed before this Court that appellant-claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 31.01.2020 due to rash and negligent driving of truck number RJ-13-GB-2190, which at the relevant time was being driven by respondent No.1-Nishan Singh. Appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation from driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. Learned Tribunal, by way of the award dated 19.03.2014, found respondent No.1 to be responsible for causing the accident due to his rash and negligent driving, due to which the appellant had sustained injuries. The Tribunal assessed total compensation at 5,96,765/- and held all the respondents to be responsible for making payment of the said compensation amount along with interest. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5106-2024 2026:PHHC:107930 3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the present appeal has been filed. 4. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that though the appellant lost eyesight of the left eye and was assessed to have suffered 30% permanent disability, but Tribunal has taken it only at 30%, though the functional disability should have been taken at least at 50%. Learned counsel does not dispute the income of the appellant at 9,000/- which has been assumed by the Tribunal on notional basis. It is also argued that compensation, even under the other heads of pain and suffering, etc., is quite inadequate. 5. On the other hand, Land counsel for the Insurance Company contends that Tribunal has rightly considered the functional disability at 30%. 6. This Court has considered submissions of both the sides and has appraised the record carefully. Functional disability and future loss of earning: 7. The first grievance raised by learned counsel for the claimant is that the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the functional disability at 30%, merely because the Medical Board certified 30% permanent physical disability. It is contended that the claimant has suffered complete loss of vision of his left eye and, therefore, the resultant loss of earning capacity is substantially higher than the certified medical disability. 8. The submission merits acceptance. It is not in dispute that the claimant suffered permanent loss of vision of his left eye in the accident. PW-1 Dr. Manisha, M.S. (Ophthalmology), proved the disability certificate showing 30% permanent disability due to complete loss of eyesight of the left eye. The learned Tribunal has noticed the said evidence and has also rightly observed that while determining compensation, the concept of functional disability has to be kept distinct from medical disability. However, despite recording the correct legal principle, the Tribunal proceeded to adopt the very same percentage of medical disability as the percentage of functional disability without examining its actual impact upon the earning capacity of the claimant. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5106-2024 2026:PHHC:107930 9. The legal position on the subject is no longer res integra. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Hon'ble Supreme Court explained that permanent physical disability and loss of earning capacity are not synonymous. The Tribunal is required to assess the extent to which the permanent disability has affected the earning capacity of the injured having regard to the nature of his vocation, age and the practical consequences flowing from the injury. The Court specifically held that in a given case the functional disability may be higher or lower than the percentage of physical disability certified by the Medical Board. 10. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in Rekha Jain v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 8 SCC 389, wherein it was held that compensation has to be assessed on the basis of the actual impact of the disability upon the profession of the claimant and not merely on the percentage mentioned in the disability certificate. Likewise, in Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571, the Supreme Court emphasized that while awarding compensation in injury cases, the Courts are required to assess the real loss of earning capacity and adopt a pragmatic rather than a mechanical approach. 11. In the present case, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the claimant at ₹9,000/- and the said finding has not been challenged by either side. The claimant has permanently lost vision in one eye. Such an injury inevitably results in loss of binocular vision, impairment of depth perception, restricted peripheral vision and difficulty in judging distance, thereby adversely affecting efficiency in almost every vocation. Although the claimant cannot be said to have become totally unemployable, it would be equally unrealistic to hold that such a permanent disability has reduced his earning capacity only to the extent of 30%. 12. The claimant was 44 years of age at the time of the accident and had many productive years of service ahead of him. The permanent deprivation of vision in one eye is bound to place him at a disadvantage in the labour market throughout the remainder of his working life. The loss is not merely physical but has a continuing adverse effect upon his capacity to earn. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5106-2024 2026:PHHC:107930 13. Having regard to the nature of disability, the age of the claimant, his avocation, and the principles laid down in Raj Kumar (supra), Rekha Jain (supra) and Jagdish (supra), this Court is of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be adequately met by assessing the functional disability at 50% instead of 30% adopted by the Tribunal. 14. Accordingly, the monthly loss of earning comes to ₹4,500/-, the annual loss of earning works out to ₹54,000/- and by applying the multiplier of 14, which has attained finality, the compensation payable towards loss of future earning capacity comes to ₹7,56,000/- (₹54,000 × 14) instead of ₹4,53,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant, therefore, becomes entitled to an enhancement of ₹3,02,400/- under this head. Non-pecuniary damages: 15. The second submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded under the conventional heads is wholly inadequate. 16. The contention also deserves acceptance. The Tribunal awarded ₹25,000/- towards pain and suffering, ₹20,000/- towards special diet, ₹20,000/- towards attendant charges and ₹25,000/- towards transportation expenses. However, no amount whatsoever has been awarded towards loss of amenities of life, notwithstanding the permanent loss of vision in one eye. 17. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that compensation in injury cases must include damages for pain, suffering, trauma, loss of amenities and inability to enjoy the normal pleasures of life. Similarly, in K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274, it was observed that while awarding compensation for permanent disability, the Courts must adopt a liberal and humane approach so that the compensation awarded is truly "just compensation" within the meaning of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 18. Loss of vision in one eye is a lifelong handicap. Apart from the physical pain suffered during treatment, the claimant has to live with permanent impairment of vision, restricted recreational activities, diminished confidence and the constant inconvenience associated with monocular vision. VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5106-2024 2026:PHHC:107930 These consequences substantially diminish the quality of life and deserve independent compensation. 19. Considering the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, this Court is of the view that compensation of ₹1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering would be fair and reasonable in place of ₹25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Further, since the Tribunal omitted to award any compensation for loss of amenities of life, the claimant is held entitled to ₹1,00,000/- under the said head. 21. The amounts awarded towards medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and special diet are based upon the appreciation of the evidence on record and do not call for any interference. 22. In view of above discussion, compensation payable to appellant is re-worked out as under: Re-assessment of compensation Sr. No. Head of Compensation Tribunal (₹) Re-assessed (₹) 1 Medical expenses 53,165 53,165 2 Loss of future earning capacity 4,53,600 7,56,000 3 Pain and suffering 25,000 1,00,000 4 Loss of amenities of life — 1,00,000 5 Special diet 20,000 20,000 6 Attendant charges 20,000 20,000 7 Transportation 25,000 25,000 Total 5,96,765 10,74,165 Thus, the claimant becomes entitled to an enhanced compensation of ₹4,77,400/-. 23. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The award dated 19.03.2024 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amritsar is VIVEK PAHWA 2026.08.07 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5106-2024 2026:PHHC:107930 modified to the extent that the compensation payable to the claimant stands enhanced from ₹5,96,765/- to ₹10,74,165/-, resulting in an enhancement of ₹4,77,400/-. 24. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the same rate and for the same period as awarded by the Tribunal, namely 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realization. The liability to satisfy the enhanced award shall remain that of respondent No.3-Insurance Company in terms of the award passed by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, failing which it shall continue to carry interest at the aforesaid rate till realization. 25. All other terms and conditions of the award shall remain unaltered. All 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 14:15 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document