FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA JITENDER Vs. DASHRATH & ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 27.04.2009 Bhiwani (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 16,000/ was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him accident. Brief Facts [2] The appellant, Jitender, being injured filed a claim petition before Ld. Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took plac 11.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1/ driver. 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Pronounced on: Vs. DASHRATH & ORS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate and Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3 – National Insurance Company Limited. ***** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 27.04.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 16,000/ was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him The appellant, Jitender, being injured filed a claim petition before Ld. Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took plac 11.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1/ 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) Reserved on: 19.08.2025 Pronounced on: 12.09.2025 …..Appellant ……Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate Mr. Suvir Dewan, Advocate and Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate National Insurance Company Limited. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), whereby an amount of Rs. 16,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular The appellant, Jitender, being injured filed a claim petition before Ld. Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 11.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1/ 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, - was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest in a vehicular The appellant, Jitender, being injured filed a claim petition before Ld. Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries e on 11.11.2007 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1/ SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) [3] After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, Ld. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurr respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded compensation in the following manner:- S.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon the driver, the owner and the insurance company jointly and severally. [4] Being aggrieved against the award dated 27.04.2009, the present appeal has been preferred by the ap compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver as held by the Tribunal are not being assailed, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated here. Arguments [5] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no compensation has been awarded by the Ld. Tribunal on account of loss of income and loss of enjoyment for life. He further contended that due to shock and injuries medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment, hospitalization besides special diet, transportation, 2009 (O&M) After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, Ld. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded compensation in the following Heads of Claim Medicine Hospitalization Special diet, Transportation & Attendant Charges Pain and Suffering Total Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon the driver, the owner and the insurance company jointly Being aggrieved against the award dated 27.04.2009, the present appeal has been preferred by the ap compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver as held by the Tribunal are not being assailed, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no compensation has been awarded by the Ld. Tribunal on account of loss of income and loss of enjoyment for life. He further contended that due to injuries sustained by the appellant, he medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment, hospitalization besides special diet, transportation, 2 After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, Ld. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that ed on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded compensation in the following Amount (in Rs.) Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 4,000/- Special diet, Transportation & Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 4,000/- Rs. 16,000/- Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon the driver, the owner and the insurance company jointly Being aggrieved against the award dated 27.04.2009, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver as held by the Tribunal are not being assailed, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no compensation has been awarded by the Ld. Tribunal on account of loss of income and loss of enjoyment for life. He further contended that due to sustained by the appellant, he could not collect all the medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment, hospitalization besides special diet, transportation, 2 After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, Ld. Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that ed on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded compensation in the following Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon the driver, the owner and the insurance company jointly Being aggrieved against the award dated 27.04.2009, the pellant for enhancement of compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding negligence of the driver as held by the Tribunal are not being assailed, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are not being repeated Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no compensation has been awarded by the Ld. Tribunal on account of loss of income and loss of enjoyment for life. He further contended that due to could not collect all the medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment, hospitalization besides special diet, transportation, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) attendant charges as well as pain and liable to be enhanced. [6] On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company submitted that appellant/claimant had been adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no interference and the present appeal is liable to b [7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Discussion On the aspect of enhancement of compensation Assessment under “Medical expenses/Hospitalization” [8] To prove his case, MLR as Ex.P5; copy of outdoor ticket as Ex.P6; medical bills as Mark A1 to Mark A6. [8.1] In the present case, appellant/claimant recei fractures as well as injuries on his chest, both legs and hands. (Ex.P5) he remained admitted in general hospital, Bhiwani till 14.11.2007 and thereafter was shifted to Anand Nursing Home, where he was operated upon his left hand an medical bills amounting to Rs. 3,234/ mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be presumed to be 2009 (O&M) ant charges as well as pain and suffering were very meager and hanced. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company submitted that appellant/claimant had been adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no interference and the present appeal is liable to b I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. On the aspect of enhancement of compensation Assessment under “Medical expenses/Hospitalization” To prove his case, appellant tendered in the evidence copy of MLR as Ex.P5; copy of outdoor ticket as Ex.P6; medical bills as Mark A1 to In the present case, appellant/claimant recei fractures as well as injuries on his chest, both legs and hands. (Ex.P5) he remained admitted in general hospital, Bhiwani till 14.11.2007 and thereafter was shifted to Anand Nursing Home, where he was operated his left hand and right leg. Even though medical bills amounting to Rs. 3,234/- only (Mark A1 to A6) but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of a person cannot be presumed to be 3 suffering were very meager and On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company submitted that appellant/claimant had been adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no interference and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the On the aspect of enhancement of compensation Assessment under “Medical expenses/Hospitalization” appellant tendered in the evidence copy of MLR as Ex.P5; copy of outdoor ticket as Ex.P6; medical bills as Mark A1 to In the present case, appellant/claimant received multiple fractures as well as injuries on his chest, both legs and hands. As per MLR (Ex.P5) he remained admitted in general hospital, Bhiwani till 14.11.2007 and thereafter was shifted to Anand Nursing Home, where he was operated d right leg. Even though appellant could produce only (Mark A1 to A6) but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all 3 suffering were very meager and On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/ Insurance Company submitted that appellant/claimant had been adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the book of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the appellant tendered in the evidence copy of MLR as Ex.P5; copy of outdoor ticket as Ex.P6; medical bills as Mark A1 to ved multiple per MLR (Ex.P5) he remained admitted in general hospital, Bhiwani till 14.11.2007 and thereafter was shifted to Anand Nursing Home, where he was operated appellant could produce only (Mark A1 to A6) but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and period, the The aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of enough to collect all SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) the bills for claim/r head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/ Assessment under “loss of income” [9] Learned Tribunal failed to assess loss of income of injured the ground that the appellant failed to evidence to prove his income. However, it is an admitted fact that appellant was 25 years of age at the time of accident and proceedings in Motor Accident Claims in strict sense is not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & Ors.”, reported as income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder: 2009 (O&M) the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under this head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-. Assessment under “loss of income” Learned Tribunal failed to assess loss of income of injured the ground that the appellant failed to bring evidence to prove his income. However, it is an admitted fact that appellant was 25 years of age at the time of accident and proceedings in Motor Accident Claims, being summary in nature, evidence e is not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & , reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same ime cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:- “…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000/ 4 hus, compensation under this Learned Tribunal failed to assess loss of income of injured on on record any documentary evidence to prove his income. However, it is an admitted fact that appellant was 25 years of age at the time of accident and, in the nature of being summary in nature, evidence e is not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & held that in absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same ime cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing eased should not be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the s no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000/- per month……” 4 hus, compensation under this on on record any documentary evidence to prove his income. However, it is an admitted fact that appellant in the nature of being summary in nature, evidence e is not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of “Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar Yadav & held that in absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same ime cannot be absolute one to fix the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) [9.1] Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and after giving anxious thought to the facts and conservatively assesses the notional income of the appellant/claimant 3250/- per month (Rs. 108.33 per day). Now, as per MLR (Ex.P5) the appellant remained hospitalization is assessed as Rs. 1625/ [9.2] Furthermore, while considering the question of compensation under the head of “loss of future income” in view of lack of any evidence to prove permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, this is interference. Assessment under “other pecuniary heads” [10] Admittedly, the injured was bed upon and would have definitely went for his post compensation granted for special diet, conveyance as Rs.4,000/- is very less. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is re-assessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/ Assessment under “non [11] In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered injuries for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment. In injury cases compensation for mental agony as well as pain and suffering cannot be assessed with mathematical certainty and the fact that no amount of compensation can restore the injured person’s and eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffered by the injured, therefore, the compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 2009 (O&M) Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and after giving anxious thought to the facts and circumstances of the present case conservatively assesses the notional income of the appellant/claimant per month (Rs. 108.33 per day). Now, as per MLR (Ex.P5) the appellant remained hospitalized for 15 days, thus, loss of income during ation is assessed as Rs. 1625/- (Rs. 108.33 x 15). Furthermore, while considering the question of compensation under the head of “loss of future income” in view of lack of any evidence to prove permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, this is Assessment under “other pecuniary heads” Admittedly, the injured was bed-ridden as he was operated upon and would have definitely went for his post compensation granted for special diet, conveyance is very less. Therefore, compensation granted under these assessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/- Assessment under “non-pecuniary heads” In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment. In injury cases compensation for mental agony as well as pain and suffering cannot be assessed with mathematical certainty and the fact that no amount of compensation can restore the injured person’s and eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffered by the injured, therefore, the compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 5 Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and after giving circumstances of the present case conservatively assesses the notional income of the appellant/claimant @ per month (Rs. 108.33 per day). Now, as per MLR (Ex.P5) the 15 days, thus, loss of income during (Rs. 108.33 x 15). Furthermore, while considering the question of compensation under the head of “loss of future income” in view of lack of any evidence to prove permanent disability of the appellant/claimant, this issue warrants no Assessment under “other pecuniary heads” ridden as he was operated upon and would have definitely went for his post-operative care. Thus, compensation granted for special diet, conveyance and attendant charges is very less. Therefore, compensation granted under these In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment. In injury cases compensation for mental agony as well as pain and suffering cannot be assessed with mathematical certainty and the fact that no amount of compensation can restore the injured person’s physical frame and eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffered by the injured, therefore, the compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 70,000/-. 5 Therefore, this Court in its humble opinion and after giving circumstances of the present case @ per month (Rs. 108.33 per day). Now, as per MLR (Ex.P5) the 15 days, thus, loss of income during Furthermore, while considering the question of compensation under the head of “loss of future income” in view of lack of any evidence to sue warrants no ridden as he was operated operative care. Thus, and attendant charges is very less. Therefore, compensation granted under these In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment. In injury cases compensation for mental agony as well as pain and suffering cannot be assessed with mathematical certainty and the fact that no physical frame and eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffered by the injured, therefore, SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-5725-2009 (O&M) Conclusion [12] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be following manner: S.No. Nature 1. Loss of Income (Rs. 3,250 + Rs. 1625) 2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization 3. Pain and Suffering 4. Compensation under other pecuniary heads Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Compensation [13] The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its realiz the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. [14] In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous applic disposed of. September 12, 2025 sanjay 2009 (O&M) In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for grant of compensation in the following manner:- Nature Loss of Income (Rs. 3,250 + Rs. 1625) Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Pain and Suffering Compensation under other pecuniary heads Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Compensation The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s) is any, shall also stand , 2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable 6 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the entitled for grant of compensation in the Amount (in Rs.) Loss of Income (Rs. 3,250 + Rs. Rs. 4875/- Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 70,000/- Compensation under other Rs. 1,00,000/- Rs. 2,24,875/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 16,000/- Rs. 2,08,875/- The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and just in view of the observation made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of ation. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands ation(s) is any, shall also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No 6 In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the entitled for grant of compensation in the The grant of interest @ 7.5% per annum is not equitable and Smt. Supe Dei and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L. Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant from the date of ation. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimant shall be deducted In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands ation(s) is any, shall also stand SANJAY GUPTA 2025.09.13 12:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document