FAO-1472-1995(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1472-1995(O&M) Reserved on: 03.09.2025 Date of decision:10.09.2025 Gian Chand through his LRs ..Appellant Versus Om Pal and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Mr. Sandeep K Sharma, Advocate (through hybrid mode) Mr. Utsav Sharma, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Lalit Garg, Advocate for respondent No.3 MANDEEP PANNU, J. CM-18050-CII-2024 1. Allowed as prayed for, subject to all the just exceptions. The legal representatives of the deceased appellant-Gian Chand, as mentioned in para 3 of the application, are permitted to be brought on record, for the purpose of prosecuting the present appeal. 2. Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Main case 3. This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 28.07.1994 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), whereby a REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.12 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-1472-1995(O&M) 2 sum of Rs.1,70,000 was awarded in his favour. He has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded. 4. Since the only issue in the appeal is qua quantum of compensation, there is need to refer to the facts of the case, as recorded in the impugned award passed by the Tribunal, for the sake of brevity. 5. This appeal was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 09.12.2024. Thereafter, an application (CM-1998-CII- 2025) was filed by the appellant/claimant for clarification/modification of the judgment dated 09.12.2024 on the ground that no finding regarding income of the claimant was given in the said order, wherein the following order was passed on 19.02.2025:- “This is an application for clarification/modification of the judgment dated 09.12.2024 passed by this Court. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Order dated 09.12.2024 is recalled. Main case is ordered to be listed for rehearing on 20.03.2025.” 6. Thereafter, the matter was listed before this Court on 03.09.2025. Both the learned counsel for the parties have stated that they do not dispute the compensation awarded vide order dated 09.12.2024 under the various Heads except for income of the claimant. Therefore, in view of the consensus arrived at, this Court REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.12 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-1472-1995(O&M) 3 directs that the claimant would be entitled to future income at rate of 40%, multiplier would be 17 and disability suffered is assessed to the extent of 80% and his loss of income is assessed at 80%. He is further held entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- under head of special diet, Rs.25,000/- as attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- as transport charges and Rs.50,000/-, under head ‘loss & suffering’. Amount of Rs.45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is also maintained. 7. Now, this Court proceeds to assess income of the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that at the time of accident, claimant was a young man aged 27 years and was running a bangle shop and earning Rs.3000/- per month. He is also matriculate. After accident, his right leg has to be amputated twice, firstly below knee and due to medical complications, he has to again undergo surgery whereby his right leg was again amputated above the knee. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no.3 submits that Tribunal has rightly assessed income of deceased and claimant has failed to produce any proof in respect of his monthly income. 9. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and also the fact that in cases where person is self employed or running small business or working in the unorganized sector, he often does not have a fixed salary, formal employment records, or meticulously maintained tax returns. In such cases, strict legalistic requirements for documentary REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.12 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-1472-1995(O&M) 4 evidence can result in a denial of rightful compensation. Therefore, the Court must use reasoned estimation to arrive at an equitable figure. Even Courts have to apply guess work to assess appropriate and reasonable income of the claimant. In the present case, in the year 1992, claimant/injured was running bangle shop but after amputation of his right leg, though he is able to run the shop but he cannot work with same capacity and also considering the fact that he was matriculate, this Court assesses his income as Rs.1500/- per month. The claimant has to remain under treatment for almost a period of four months from 30.11.1992 (date of accident) and during this period, he has to be hospitalized three times; firstly from 30.11.1992 to 21.12.1992, then 10.01.1993 to 12.01.1993 and thereafter on 30.03.1993 for a period of three days. Therefore, he is also entitled towards loss of income for this period of treatment/hospitalization, which comes to Rs.6000/- (1500x4=6000/-) 11. Accordingly, the compensation is reassessed as under:- Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded 1. Monthly Income 1500/- 2. Loss of income during period of hospitalization 6000/- 3. Future prospects @ 40% 1500x40% = 600 1500+600 = 2100 4. Annual Income 2100x12= 25,200/- 5. Multiplier 17 25200x17= 4,28,400/- REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.12 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh FAO-1472-1995(O&M) 5 6. Permanent disability @ 80% and loss of income @ 80% 428400 x 80% 3,42,720/- 7. Medical expenses 45000/- 8. Special diet 10,000/- 9. Attendant charges 25,000/- 10. Transport charges 10,000/- 11. Loss & Suffering 50,000/- Total Compensation Rs.4,88,720/- 12. With the aforesaid modifications in the impugned award, the present appeal stands partly allowed. 13. The claimant shall be entitled to enhanced amount of compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. 14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) 10.09.2025 JUDGE rekha Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No REKHA SIHAG 2025.09.12 23:24 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh