IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -1- 118 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 Date of decision: 18.08.2025 ASHWANI YADAV ..Appellant Versus JAGDISH KUMAR AND ORS. ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Manish Soni, Advocate for the appellant. Respondent No.1 and 2 ex parte. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate (through v.c.) Mr. Harjinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Co. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 11.02.2010 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for short, 'the Tribunal'), for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant to the tune of Rs.6,40,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6%, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 19.12.2007. 2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case is not required to be reproduced here for the sake of brevity. 3. At the very outset, it is evident from the record that respondents No.1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte by the learned Tribunal vide order dated MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -2- 19.11.2008. Upon matter being listed before this Court, fresh notices were issued to them for 11.08.2011. The respondent No.2 was duly served but respondent No.1 remained unserved. Despite service, respondent No.2 failed to appear. Subsequently, three additional notices issued to respondent No.1 were also returned unserved. In light of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to proceed against the said respondents ex parte and adjudicate the matter on merits. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 4. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the compensation assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side, as the appellant received serious injuries on his body. His permanent disability was assessed to the extent of 25%, which was proved by PW15 Dr. Ashok Saini, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Rewari. He further contends that the amount awarded under conventional heads by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has rightly been granted. He prays for dismissal of the appeal. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with their able assistance. SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343, has held as under:- MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -3- General principles relating to compensation in injury cases 5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which means that compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to assess the damages objectively and exclude from consideration any speculation or fancy, though some conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T. Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC 551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467). 6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -4- (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. xxx xxx xxx xxx 19. We may now summarise the principles discussed above : (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity. (ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -5- disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning capacity is the same as percentage of permanent disability). (iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety. (iv) The same permanent disability may result in different percentages of loss of earning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of profession, occupation or job, age, education and other factors. 20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is explained below with reference to the following Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30 years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was 60% and the consequential permanent disability to the person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of compensation will be as follows: a) Annual income before the accident : Rs. 36,000/-. b) Loss of future earning per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-. c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17 d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/- MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -6- Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years, earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His chances of getting any other employment was bleak and even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows : a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/- . b) Loss of future earning per annum (75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-. c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17 d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/- Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he was in coma for two months, his right hand was amputated and vision was affected. The permanent disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he required the assistance of a servant throughout his life, the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as 70%. The calculation of compensation will be as follows : a) Minimum annual income he would have got if had been employed as an Engineer : Rs. 60,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/- c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18 d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/- MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -7- [Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra (supra)]. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on the following aspects:- (A) Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine multiplicand; (B) Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased; (C) Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier; (D) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with escalation; (E) Future prospects for all categories of persons and for different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed salary. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:- “ Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum- centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -8- because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads.” 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:- “ 7. There are three aspects which are required to be examined by us: (a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18'; The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para 46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years, the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the extent of disability. The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus, we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not '17'. (b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with permanent disability of 31.1% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018 ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande & Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8: MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -9- "8. In assessing the compensation payable the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects: (i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident; (ii) Loss of income including future income; (iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities; (iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and (v) Loss of expectation of life." [emphasis supplied] The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of income as a result of death or permanent disability suffered in an accident. In the factual contours of the present case, if we examine the disability certificate, it shows the admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as under: "Nature of injury: (i) compound fracture shaft left humerus (ii) fracture both bones left forearm (iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm (iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand (v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur (vi) fracture shaft femur MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -10- (vii) fracture both bones left leg We have also perused the photographs annexed to the petition showing the current physical state of the appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the respondent State Corporation that the same was not on record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the position even after treatment and the nature of injuries itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while applying the multiplier method, future prospects on advancement in life and career are also to be taken into consideration. We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid principles with regard to future prospects must also be applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case (supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary in the present case. (c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate claimed as 12% In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has watered down the interest rate during the course of hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements including in the Jagdish’s case (supra). On this aspect, once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the learned counsel for the respondent once MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -11- the claim was confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by this Court. CONCLUSION 8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled principles, the calculation of compensation by the appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would have to be adopted as follows: Heads Awarded Loss of earning power (Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100 Rs. 9,81,978/- Future prospects (50 per cent addition) Rs.4,90,989/- Medical expenses including transport charges, nourishment, etc. Rs.18,46,864/- Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/- Loss of comfort, loss of amenities and mental agony Rs.1,50,000/- Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- Total Rs.41,69,831/- The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment. 10. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the appellant was stated to be pursuing an M.Tech. degree at the National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT), Bengaluru. However, the learned Tribunal failed to duly consider this pertinent fact and did not undertake a proper assessment of the appellant's notional income, keeping in view his educational qualifications and future earning potential. MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -12- 11. It is well settled that in cases involving young and qualified claimants, the Courts are empowered to assess notional income based on educational background and future prospects. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kandasami & Others v. Linda Briyal & Another, 2023 ACJ 1653, decided on 24.4.2023, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the case of an engineering graduate, assessed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.25,000/-. The relevant paras of Kandasami’s case (supra) are reproduced below:- “3. The only question for consideration herein is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The accident had occurred on 28.9.2008 and the deceased was aged 28 years. It is the claim of the appellants that the deceased had completed B-Tech course and also done a course in computer applications. Though the salary certificate exhibited at Annexure P-35 was relied upon by the appellants before the MACT, the salary as indicated in the salary certificate has not been accepted by the MACT since PW 2 who had issued the salary certificate himself has stated that he had started his company about three months back and there was no other document to establish the same. 4. Be that as it may, even in that circumstance, when it is established that the deceased was an Engineering graduate and the employment opportunities during the year 2008 is kept in view, even on a conservative estimate the sum of Rs. 25,000 to be reckoned would be justified. In that view, in the instant case we would reckon income of the deceased at Rs. 25,000 per month. Towards the same, 40 per cent is to be awarded as ‘future prospects’ which would be in a sum of Rs. 10,000. Hence, the total income would be Rs. 35,000 per month of which 50 per cent is to be deducted, as the deceased was bachelor. The amount of Rs. 17,500 if taken on the annual basis and the appropriate multiplier of ‘17’ is applied, the amount would be in a sum of Rs. 35,70,000. The sum of Rs. 70,000 is MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -13- added towards ‘conventional heads’. Hence, the total compensation would work out to Rs. 36,40,000. The High Court has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,97,000. The appellants would therefore be entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 25,43,000 with interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the petition before the MACT till the date of payment.” 12. In the present case, considering the appellant’s status as an M.Tech. student, his academic excellence, and the resultant loss of employment opportunities, this Court deems it appropriate to assess the notional income of the claimant as Rs.30,000/- per month. 13. A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the amount awarded towards pain and suffering is on the lower side and does not reflect the gravity of the injuries sustained by the appellant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.S. Muralidhar v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, has laid down the guiding principles for awarding just and reasonable compensation under the head of ‘pain and suffering’. The relevant portion of the K.S.Muralidhar’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:- “15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs.15,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.” 14. In light of the aforesaid judgment and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -14- appropriate to enhance the compensation under this head and accordingly awards a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. 15. A further perusal of the impugned award reveals that the transportation charges, special diet and attendant charges awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and does not commensurate with the actual needs and circumstances of the appellant, therefore deserves to be enhanced. Moreover, no amount was awarded under the conventional heads i.e future medical expenses, loss of marriage prospects, loss of amenities of life. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court. RELIEF 16. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated 11.02.2010 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant-claimant is held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:- Income Rs.30,000/- Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.42,000/- (40% of Rs.30,000/-) Annual Income Rs.5,04,000/- (Rs.42,000/- X 12) Loss of future earning on account of 25% disability Rs.1,26,000/- (Rs.5,04,000/- X 25%) Multiplier of 18 Rs.22,68,000/- (Rs.1,26,000/- X 18) Medical Expenses Rs.4,70,055/- Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/- Attendant Charges Rs.60,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.50,000/- Loss of amenities of life + Loss of marriage prospects Rs.70,000/- Special Diet Rs.50,000/- Total compensation awarded:- Rs.31,68,055/- Deduction:- Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.6,40,000/- Enhanced amount of compensation Rs.25,28,055/- MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. IOIN-1-FAO-5633-2010 in/and FAO-5633-2010 -15- 17. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma 2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization. 18. Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the appellant-claimant. 19. However, respondent-Insurance Company is granted liberty to recover the said amount of compensation from the insured i.e. owner of the offending vehicle as per the award dated 11.02.2010. 20. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE August 18th, 2025 Ayub Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MOHD AYUB 2025.08.21 12:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.