IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 237 Jawahar Singh Deepak Kumar & Another CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal”), vide Award dated dated 29.09.2016 (hereinafter referred to as 2. basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that accident that took place on driving of three referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 The above-said compensation was granted along with interest @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Jawahar Singh Vs. Deepak Kumar & Another HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Baljeet Beniwal, Advocate *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated 13.07.2018 passed in dated 29.09.2016 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the appellant had suffered accident that took place on 03.04.2016 due to the rash and negligent three-wheeler bearing registration No. referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending cle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No. said compensation was granted along with interest @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1967-2019(O&M) Date of decision: 07.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate for the appellant. Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- awarded by the (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in Claim Petition No.99 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular due to the rash and negligent bearing registration No.HR-73-5772 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending and insured by respondent No.2. said compensation was granted along with interest @ 7.5% per 6 claimant awarded by the (hereinafter referred to as “the No.99 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act Brief facts of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it in a motor vehicular due to the rash and negligent (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending . % per SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document annum from the date of filing the claim petition realisation. Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. 3. the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side as it is proven fact on record that the appellant was a serving the Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad prior to the accident, Rs.40,000/-. It is further submitted that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered multiple he remained hospitalised for about 2 months. The appellant had spent about Rs.10 lakh on his treatment. getting pension only. In addition to that, he is owner of irrigated agricultural land. Before the accident, the appella himself used to cultivate accordingly prayed that the Award be modified and the compensation awarded to the appellant be enhanced. 4. 5. perused the case file in great detail. 6. Petition are from the date of filing the claim petition Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the aforesaid compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side as it is proven fact on record that the appellant was a serving the Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad prior to the accident, the appellant was deriving monthly income of . It is further submitted that in the accident in question, the ppellant had suffered multiple simple and grievous injuries due to which mained hospitalised for about 2 months. The appellant had spent about Rs.10 lakh on his treatment. The appellant is an Ex getting pension only. In addition to that, he is owner of irrigated agricultural land. Before the accident, the appellant was a very successful farmer himself used to cultivate, manage and supervise his entire land. It is accordingly prayed that the Award be modified and the compensation awarded to the appellant be enhanced. No other argument is made on behalf of I have heard learned counsel for the d the case file in great detail. The facts as pleaded by the appellant in the Claim Petition are that on 3.4.2016, claimant was going to his house from Bus from the date of filing the claim petition till the date of actual Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the r the appellant inter alia submits that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side as it is proven fact on record that the appellant was a serving Sub-Inspector in the Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad and is an agriculturist. As such, the appellant was deriving monthly income of . It is further submitted that in the accident in question, the simple and grievous injuries due to which mained hospitalised for about 2 months. The appellant had spent The appellant is an Ex-serviceman and getting pension only. In addition to that, he is owner of irrigated agricultural nt was a very successful farmer and , manage and supervise his entire land. It is accordingly prayed that the Award be modified and the compensation No other argument is made on behalf of the appellant. learned counsel for the appellant and The facts as pleaded by the appellant in the Claim on 3.4.2016, claimant was going to his house from Bus 6 the date of actual Respondents were held jointly and severally liable to pay the submits that the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side as it in and is an agriculturist. As such, the appellant was deriving monthly income of . It is further submitted that in the accident in question, the simple and grievous injuries due to which mained hospitalised for about 2 months. The appellant had spent serviceman and getting pension only. In addition to that, he is owner of irrigated agricultural and , manage and supervise his entire land. It is accordingly prayed that the Award be modified and the compensation and The facts as pleaded by the appellant in the Claim on 3.4.2016, claimant was going to his house from Bus SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Stand and when he wheeler bearing registration no.HR by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and also at a high speed came and hit him from behind. The driver of the told his name as Deepak son of Balbir. One Raj Singh, resident of village Banchari and Mukesh Kumar, resident of Hodal rushed towards the spot and they called Satish, son of the claimant on telephone, who got injured admitted in Asi efforts to compromise the matter, but in vain. The accident in question had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the by respondent no.1. Claimant got registered a case on the basis of his statement vide FIR No.213 dated 22.4.2016 against him for causing the accident in question. It has been further pleaded that at the time of the accident, claimant sustained multiple and right leg and chest. He was taken to Asian Hospital, Faridabad, where he remained admitted from medico-legally examined. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/ conveyance, attendant and special diet. He was still under treatment and some more amount was required for his future treatment. He was aged about 57 years and was a Sub Inspector in Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad. His monthly income was Rs.40,000/ was quite hale and hearty. He suffered great pain and agony. Due to Stand and when he reached near Chirag Palace, around 6.30 p.m., a three wheeler bearing registration no.HR-73-5772/offending vehicle, being by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and also at a high speed came and hit him from behind. The driver of the told his name as Deepak son of Balbir. One Raj Singh, resident of village Banchari and Mukesh Kumar, resident of Hodal rushed towards the spot and they called Satish, son of the claimant on telephone, who got injured admitted in Asian Hospital, Faridabad. Respondent no.1 made efforts to compromise the matter, but in vain. The accident in question had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the by respondent no.1. Claimant got registered a case on the basis of his statement vide FIR No.213 dated 22.4.2016 against him for causing the accident in question. It has been further pleaded that at the time of the accident, claimant sustained multiple and grievous injuries including head, right leg and chest. He was taken to Asian Hospital, Faridabad, where he remained admitted from 3.4.2016 to 7.6.2016 legally examined. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/ e, attendant and special diet. He was still under treatment and some more amount was required for his future treatment. He was aged about 57 years and was a Sub Inspector in Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad. His monthly income was Rs.40,000/ was quite hale and hearty. He suffered great pain and agony. Due to reached near Chirag Palace, around 6.30 p.m., a three- /offending vehicle, being driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and also at a high speed came and hit him from behind. The driver of the vehicle in question told his name as Deepak son of Balbir. One Raj Singh, resident of village Banchari and Mukesh Kumar, resident of Hodal rushed towards the spot and they called Satish, son of the claimant on telephone, who got the an Hospital, Faridabad. Respondent no.1 made efforts to compromise the matter, but in vain. The accident in question had taken place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Claimant got registered a case on the basis of his statement vide FIR No.213 dated 22.4.2016 against him for causing the accident in question. It has been further pleaded that at the time of the grievous injuries including head, right leg and chest. He was taken to Asian Hospital, Faridabad, where he 3.4.2016 to 7.6.2016 and where he was also legally examined. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was spent on treatment, e, attendant and special diet. He was still under treatment and some more amount was required for his future treatment. He was aged about 57 years and was a Sub Inspector in Haryana Roadways Depot at Faridabad. His monthly income was Rs.40,000/-. Prior to the accident, he was quite hale and hearty. He suffered great pain and agony. Due to 6 - driven by the respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner and also at a high vehicle in question told his name as Deepak son of Balbir. One Raj Singh, resident of village Banchari and Mukesh Kumar, resident of Hodal rushed towards the spot the an Hospital, Faridabad. Respondent no.1 made efforts to compromise the matter, but in vain. The accident in question had offending vehicle by respondent no.1. Claimant got registered a case on the basis of his statement vide FIR No.213 dated 22.4.2016 against him for causing the accident in question. It has been further pleaded that at the time of the grievous injuries including head, right leg and chest. He was taken to Asian Hospital, Faridabad, where he and where he was also was spent on treatment, e, attendant and special diet. He was still under treatment and some more amount was required for his future treatment. He was aged about 57 years and was a Sub Inspector in Haryana Roadways Depot at the accident, he was quite hale and hearty. He suffered great pain and agony. Due to SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to work continuously and became a permanent disabled person. The claimant made a claim of Rs.25 lacs. All the respondents 7. appellant in his cross that I was receiving full salary during the accidental period from my Department” awarded towards loss of income. submitted by the appellant, he had stated therein that he had already taken reimbursement of Rs.2,32,000/ Mark B) from his Department. As such, Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 to Ex.P40) Rs.9,68,300/- Haryana Roadways towards medical reimbursement. L accordingly awarded remaining amount of Rs.5,06,000/ expenses. 8. appellant was shown to have suffered non (subtrochaneric) with proximal femur nail in situ Doctors constituted to assess the disability of the appellant, he had suffered disability to the extent of 12% only evidence of PW1 Dr. Chirag injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to work continuously and became a permanent disabled person. The claimant made a claim of Rs.25 lacs. All the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. However, a perusal of the record shows that the appellant in his cross-examination has himself admitted that “ that I was receiving full salary during the accidental period from my Department”. In view of the said admission of the appellant, nothing was awarded towards loss of income. Further, a submitted by the appellant, he had stated therein that he had already taken reimbursement of Rs.2,32,000/- and Rs.2,23,450/ from his Department. As such, of the medical bills (Ex.P7, Ex.P10 to Ex.P26 and Ex.P27 to Ex.P40) produced by the appellant for a total sum of -, the appellant had already received Rs.4,62,450/ a Roadways towards medical reimbursement. L accordingly awarded remaining amount of Rs.5,06,000/ Further, as per the Disability Certificate (Ex.P5), the appellant was shown to have suffered non (subtrochaneric) with proximal femur nail in situ Doctors constituted to assess the disability of the appellant, he had suffered disability to the extent of 12% only. The same was proven from the evidence of PW1 Dr. Chirag Sethi, Orthopedic Surgeon. Th injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to work continuously and became a permanent disabled person. The claimant made a claim of Rs.25 are liable to pay the compensation. perusal of the record shows that the examination has himself admitted that “It is correct that I was receiving full salary during the accidental period from my said admission of the appellant, nothing was Further, as per the duly sworn affidavit submitted by the appellant, he had stated therein that he had already taken and Rs.2,23,450/- against bills (Mark A and the medical bills (Ex.P7, Ex.P10 to produced by the appellant for a total sum of , the appellant had already received Rs.4,62,450/- from the a Roadways towards medical reimbursement. Ld. Tribunal had accordingly awarded remaining amount of Rs.5,06,000/- towards medical Further, as per the Disability Certificate (Ex.P5), the appellant was shown to have suffered non-union fracture right femur (subtrochaneric) with proximal femur nail in situ. As per the Board of Doctors constituted to assess the disability of the appellant, he had suffered . The same was proven from the , Orthopedic Surgeon. Thus, learned 6 injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to work continuously and became a permanent disabled person. The claimant made a claim of Rs.25 perusal of the record shows that the It is correct that I was receiving full salary during the accidental period from my said admission of the appellant, nothing was s per the duly sworn affidavit submitted by the appellant, he had stated therein that he had already taken against bills (Mark A and the medical bills (Ex.P7, Ex.P10 to produced by the appellant for a total sum of from the Tribunal had towards medical Further, as per the Disability Certificate (Ex.P5), the right femur . As per the Board of Doctors constituted to assess the disability of the appellant, he had suffered . The same was proven from the learned SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Tribunal had disability in terms of Engineer, Mechanical & Others” 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103 # 138136. As the appellant had remained hospitalised from 03.04.2016 to 12.04.2016 and then again from 03.06.2016 to 07.06.2016 and had undergone three operations pain & suffering. Further, a amenities and enjoyment of life; Rs.20,000/ attendant charges and Rs.10,000/ awarding total compensation of Rs.6,50,000/ i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. 9. compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the Tribunal had correctly awarded Rs.24,000/- disability in terms of judgment in “Ram Karan Goyal Vs. Sub Engineer, Mechanical & Others” 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103 As the appellant had remained hospitalised from 03.04.2016 to 12.04.2016 and then again from 03.06.2016 to 07.06.2016 and had undergone three operations, the learned Tribuna pain & suffering. Further, a sum of Rs.60,000/ amenities and enjoyment of life; Rs.20,000/ attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges. Thus, awarding total compensation of Rs.6,50,000/ Medical expenses less amount of reimbursement as admittedly taken by claimant from his department On account of disability to the extent of 12% Pain and suffering Loss of amenities & enjoyment of life Special diet and attendant charges Transportation charges Total From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. I find the compensation a to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the - i.e. Rs.2,000/- for every 1% of “Ram Karan Goyal Vs. Sub-Divisional Engineer, Mechanical & Others” 2008(2) RCR (Civil) 103; Law Finder Doc ID As the appellant had remained hospitalised from 03.04.2016 to 12.04.2016 and then again from 03.06.2016 to 07.06.2016 and had learned Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- for sum of Rs.60,000/- was awarded towards loss of amenities and enjoyment of life; Rs.20,000/- towards special diet and for transportation charges. Thus, awarding total compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- in following manner:- Medical expenses less amount of reimbursement as admittedly taken by claimant from his Rs.5,06,000/- On account of disability to the Rs.24,000/- Rs.30,000/- Loss of amenities & enjoyment of Rs.60,000/- Special diet and attendant charges Rs.20,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.6,50,000/- From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the I find the compensation awarded to the appellant to be just and fair in the facts and circumstances of the 6 for every 1% of Divisional Law Finder Doc ID As the appellant had remained hospitalised from 03.04.2016 to 12.04.2016 and then again from 03.06.2016 to 07.06.2016 and had for was awarded towards loss of towards special diet and for transportation charges. Thus, SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document case. No doubt Chapter cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a s ‘State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just a reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume has held that misplaced sympath the guiding factor for determining the compensation. 10. 11. 07.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: case. No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) has held that the amount of compensation should be just a reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of “General Manager, Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to ource of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a very ‘just’ compensation, which is in accordance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, does not warrant the interference “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court y, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.05.09 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document