124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4445-2025 Date of Decision: March 19, 2026 Saroj … Appellant Versus Sa0sh Kumar and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. DEEPAK GUPTA , J.(Oral) On the previous date of hearing on 10.02.2026, following order was passed:- “Claim pe%%on is filed under Sec%on 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the appellant-Saroj, seeking compensa%on on account of injuries sustained in a motor vehicular accident caused by user of motorcycle bearing registra%on No.HR-35K-5219. Learned Tribunal has awarded compensa%on of
1,43,750/- along with interest. Seeking enhancement, it is contended by learned counsel that appellant had incurred an expenditure of
7 lakh approximately on the treatment and therefore, the compensa%on cannot be confined to the Schedule appended with Sec%on 163A of the Act. Learned counsel seeks %me to assist this Court on this issue. Adjourned to 19.03.2026.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he could not refer to any judgment to show that the compensa%on for incurring the medical expenses could not be confined as per second schedule. 3. The Tribunal while assessing the compensa%on has observed as under:- “17. So far as the quantum of compensa%on is concerned, The Second Schedule of the MV Act has amended vide Gaze>e No%fica%on dated 22.5.2018, wherein compensa%on payable in case of permanent disability shall be as per the formula prescribed therein and same is as under:- SARITA RANI 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order
FAO-4445-2025 - 2 - 2026:PHHC:043357 ₹5,00,000/- x percentage disability as per Schedule I of the Employee’s Compensa%on Act, 1923 provided that the minimum compensa%on in case of permanent disability of any kind shall not be less than fiCy thousand rupees. On and from the date of 1 st day of January, 2019 the amount of compensa%on specific in clauses (a) to (c) of paragraph (1) shall stand increased by 5 per cent annually. 18. As per the disability cer%ficate Ex.PW4/A, duly proved by PW4, it is evident that pe%%oner has suffered disability to the extent of 25% on account of post trauma%c pain and s%ffness right elbow with difficulty in co-ordinal ac%vity pertaining to right upper limb. So, as per The Second Schedule of the MV Act, pe%%oner is en%tled for compensa%on to the tune of 5,00,000X15 (increase 5% annually) i.e. ₹ 75,000/- = 5,75,000 (5,00,00+75,000) X 25/100 =1,43,750/-. Hence, pe%%oner is awarded a sum of ₹1,43,750/- as compensa%on. Now it is to be seen as to who is liable to make the payment of the amount of compensa%on. 19. Since it has been held that the insurance policy Ex.P60 or Ex.R1 is comprehensive policy and it also covers pillion rider, therefore, pe%%oner being pillion rider is en%tled for compensa%on as per the amended Second Schedule of the MV Act. So, respondent No.2/insurance policy shall pay the compensa%on amount of ₹1,43,750/- to the pe%%oner. Accordingly, issue No.2 stands decided against the respondent No.2.” This Court does not find any illegality and perversity in the aforesaid observa%ons as the compensa%on is to be assessed in case of permanent disability, as per the second schedule. This Court does not find any ground to interfere in the observa%ons made by the Tribunal. As such, the present appeal is dismissed. March 19, 2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) sarita JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No SARITA RANI 2026.03.19 15:53 I attest to the accuracy of this document/order