FAO No. 1649 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ranjit Singh State of Punjab & Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued by:- Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Krunesh Kaushal, AAG Punjab and Mr. Atinder Pal Singh, Advocate For respondent No.2. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. On 14 vehicle number appellant Ranjit Singh sustained injuries.He filed petition under Section 1 the Motor Vehicle Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal ₹10,000/- for transportation disability, ₹ 1,00,000/ attendant charges and assessed was ₹ 3,50,000, which owner of the offending vehicle jointly and per annum, from t Dis in compensation. FAO No. 1649 of 2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1649 of 2000(O&M) & XOBJC-16-CII of 2001 Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 Versus State of Punjab & Anr. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Sudhir Pruthi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Krunesh Kaushal, AAG Punjab and Mr. Atinder Pal Singh, Advocate For respondent No.2. *** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. On 14.03.1995, on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of vehicle number PB08B-2221 owned by Respondent ppellant Ranjit Singh sustained injuries.He filed petition under Section 1 the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation Tribunal, Chandigarh. The Tribunal awarded for transportation charges, ₹ 1,30,000/ ₹ 1,00,000/- on account of loss of salary, charges and ₹ 10,000/- for special ₹ 3,50,000, which were directed to be paid by the driver of the offending vehicle jointly and severally, per annum, from the date of filing of the petition. Dis-satisfied claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement in compensation. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 1649 of 2000(O&M) & Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Pronounced on: 24.09.2025 …Appellant …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Krunesh Kaushal, AAG Punjab and , on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of owned by Respondent-State of Punjab, petitioner ppellant Ranjit Singh sustained injuries.He filed petition under Section 166 of Act, seeking compensation before Motor Accident Claims awarded ₹90,000/- for medical expenses, ₹ 1,30,000/- on account of permanent of loss of salary, ₹10,000/- on account of for special diet, thus, total compensation were directed to be paid by the driver and severally, along with interest @ 12% of the petition. satisfied claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement Appellant Respondents , on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of etitioner- 6 of before Motor Accident Claims for medical expenses, on account of permanent count of thus, total compensation and @ 12% satisfied claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 1649 of 2000 On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle filed cross objections submitting that there was no negligence on his part in driving the offending vehicle. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record. As far as the cross concerned, the same deserve to be dismissed. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 has been convicted by the criminal Court on account of his rash been refuted by counsel for the respondents. As such, the finding on issue No.1 regarding the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 is hereby affirmed. Seeking enhanc appellant-claimant that claimant suffered 65% permanent disability as he was found to have left sided hemiparesis besides stiffness of the left knee. He points out that despite this permanent disability of has been awarded by the Tribunal under this head. It is contended that compensation on account of permanent disability should be assessed by considering it as a functional disability and by calculating the amount as per t income of the injured. As per the evidence on record, injured was working as Patwari at the relevant time and was getting monthly salary of regard to the nature of his job, it cannot be assumed that his functional disability was reduced to the extent of 65%. However, still the said functional disability can be taken to be at month i.e. ₹32,400/ loss comes out to time of accident and so by applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation on account of permanent disability is assessed to be ₹1,30,000/- has already been awarded, ther ₹1,45,400/-. FAO No. 1649 of 2000 On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle filed cross objections submitting that there was no negligence on his part in driving the offending vehicle. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and have appraised the record. As far as the cross-objections filed by respondent No.2 concerned, the same deserve to be dismissed. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 has been convicted by the criminal Court on account of his rash and negligent driving. The said fact has not been refuted by counsel for the respondents. As such, the finding on issue No.1 regarding the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 is hereby affirmed. Seeking enhancement, it is contended by learned counsel for the claimant that claimant suffered 65% permanent disability as he was found to have left sided hemiparesis besides stiffness of the left knee. He points out that despite this permanent disability of 65%, only an amount of has been awarded by the Tribunal under this head. It is contended that compensation on account of permanent disability should be assessed by considering it as a functional disability and by calculating the amount as per t income of the injured. As per the evidence on record, injured was working as Patwari at the relevant time and was getting monthly salary of regard to the nature of his job, it cannot be assumed that his functional disability was reduced to the extent of 65%. However, still the said functional disability can be taken to be at-least 50%. Taking the salary of injured as ₹32,400/- per annum and by deducting 50% (functional disability), the loss comes out to be ₹16,200/- per annum. Injured was 30 years of age at the time of accident and so by applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation on account of permanent disability is assessed to be has already been awarded, ther On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle filed cross objections submitting that there was no negligence on his part in driving the This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and objections filed by respondent No.2-driver are concerned, the same deserve to be dismissed. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 has been convicted by the and negligent driving. The said fact has not been refuted by counsel for the respondents. As such, the finding on issue No.1 regarding the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of ement, it is contended by learned counsel for the claimant that claimant suffered 65% permanent disability as he was found to have left sided hemiparesis besides stiffness of the left knee. He points 65%, only an amount of ₹1,30,000/ has been awarded by the Tribunal under this head. It is contended that compensation on account of permanent disability should be assessed by considering it as a functional disability and by calculating the amount as per the As per the evidence on record, injured was working as Patwari at the relevant time and was getting monthly salary of ₹2700/- to ₹2800/-. Having regard to the nature of his job, it cannot be assumed that his functional disability was reduced to the extent of 65%. However, still the said functional disability least 50%. Taking the salary of injured as ₹2700/- per per annum and by deducting 50% (functional disability), the per annum. Injured was 30 years of age at the time of accident and so by applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation on account of permanent disability is assessed to be ₹2,75,400/-. An amount of has already been awarded, therefore, enhancement comes to On the other hand, the driver of the offending vehicle filed cross- objections submitting that there was no negligence on his part in driving the This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides and driver are concerned, the same deserve to be dismissed. It has been stated by learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No.2 has been convicted by the and negligent driving. The said fact has not been refuted by counsel for the respondents. As such, the finding on issue No.1 regarding the accident having been caused due to rash and negligent driving of ement, it is contended by learned counsel for the claimant that claimant suffered 65% permanent disability as he was found to have left sided hemiparesis besides stiffness of the left knee. He points ₹1,30,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal under this head. It is contended that compensation on account of permanent disability should be assessed by he As per the evidence on record, injured was working as Patwari at . Having regard to the nature of his job, it cannot be assumed that his functional disability was reduced to the extent of 65%. However, still the said functional disability per per annum and by deducting 50% (functional disability), the per annum. Injured was 30 years of age at the time of accident and so by applying the multiplier of 17, the compensation on . An amount of efore, enhancement comes to JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO No. 1649 of 2000 Enhancement in compensation under no other head has been claimed. On account of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is accepted by modifying the award of the Tribunal and by allowing enhanced compensation of compensation of interest @ 7.5% petition till actual realization. Disp 24.09.2025 Jiten Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable FAO No. 1649 of 2000 Enhancement in compensation under no other head has been On account of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is accepted by modifying the award of the Tribunal and by allowing enhanced on of ₹1,45,400/- to the appellant compensation of ₹1,45,400/- shall be payable to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realization. Disposed of accordingly. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Enhancement in compensation under no other head has been On account of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is accepted by modifying the award of the Tribunal and by allowing enhanced to the appellant-claimant. The said enhanced shall be payable to the appellant along with to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Enhancement in compensation under no other head has been On account of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal is accepted by modifying the award of the Tribunal and by allowing enhanced claimant. The said enhanced shall be payable to the appellant along with to be calculated from the date of filing of the claim JITEN SHARMA 2025.09.24 15:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document