1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AMRIT LAL JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: HARKESH MANUJA, J. [1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/ compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% p annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. Brief Facts [2]. The appellant, Amrit Lal, filed Additional Sessions Judge praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by took place on 25.11.2008 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1/ driver. [3]. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Addition arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash FAO IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Pronounced on: AMRIT LAL Vs. JAGDISH CHAND & ORS. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate and Ms. Alisha Bindal, Advocate for respondents. ***** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/ compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% p annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. The appellant, Amrit Lal, filed a Additional Sessions Judge praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2008 while alleging rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1/ driver. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Addition arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash FAO-359-2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-359-2011 (O&M) Reserved on: 13.08.2025 Pronounced on: 28.08.2025 AMRIT LAL ….Appellant ..Respondents HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate Mr. Ravinder Arora, Advocate and Ms. Alisha Bindal, Advocate for respondents. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, whereby an amount of Rs. 1,05,000/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a vehicular accident. a claim petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge praying for grant of compensation on him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2008 while alleging rash and negligent driving by After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led by both the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash 2011 (O&M) Reserved on: 13.08.2025 08.2025 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated 02.08.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, was awarded as er claim petition before learned Additional Sessions Judge praying for grant of compensation on him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.11.2008 while alleging rash and negligent driving by After going through the claim petition and evaluating the al Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 2 and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded compensation in the following manner: S.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. [4]. Being aggrieved against the award dated 02.08.2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for e 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 Learned Additional Sessions Judge on account of attendant charges. He further contended that due to shock and injuries sustained by the appellant, the medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment was very meager and liable to be FAO and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded compensation in the following manner:- Heads of Claim Expenses incurred on the treatment due to permanent disability. Loss of income due to disability Pain and suffering Conveyance Special Diet Total Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. Being aggrieved against the award dated 02.08.2010, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant for e 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 Learned Additional Sessions Judge on account of attendant charges. He further contended that due injuries sustained by the appellant, the medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment was very meager and liable to be FAO-359-2011 (O&M) and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded Amount (in Rs.) Expenses incurred on the treatment due to permanent Rs. 25,000/- Loss of income due to disability Rs. 60,000/- Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Total Rs. 1,05,000/- Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was fastened upon respondent No.3/ Insurance Company. Being aggrieved against the award dated 02.08.2010, 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 Learned Additional Sessions Judge on account of attendant charges. He further contended that due injuries sustained by the appellant, he could not collect all the medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment was very meager and liable to be and negligent driving of respondent No. 1/ driver and awarded Liability to pay the amount of compensation to the petitioner was Being aggrieved against the award dated 02.08.2010, the nhancement 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 Learned Additional Sessions Judge on account of attendant charges. He further contended that due ct all the medical bills at the relevant time and as such, compensation granted for medical treatment was very meager and liable to be TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 3 enhanced. He also submitted that loss of income while he was bed ridden; and considering the 25% permanent disability suf appellant; besides for spe the lower side and the same was liable to be enhanced. [6]. On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No. 3/ insurance company submitted that appellant/claimant had already been adequately compensated and as such the impugned award warrants no interference and be dismissed. [7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. Discussion On the aspect of enhancemen Assessment under “medical expenses/ hospitalization” [8]. To prove his case, appellant tendered in the evidence his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A; copy of DDR as Ex. P11; copy of treatment record as Ex.P4; medical bills as Ex.P6 and certificate as Ex.P44. [8.1]. In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered fracture medial malleous, left ankle and skin grafting over left knee and left leg that was operated and wires were inserted. Further, a perus disability certificate (Ex.P44) of the injured shows that he suffered 25% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Even though appellant could produce medical bills amounting FAO enhanced. He also submitted that loss of income while he was bed considering the 25% permanent disability suf appellant; besides for special diet and conveyance charges the lower side and the same was 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 thus, the present appe I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper 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 his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A; copy of DDR as Ex. P11; copy of treatment record as Ex.P4; medical bills as Ex.P6 and certificate as Ex.P44. [8.1]. In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered fracture medial malleous, left ankle and skin grafting over left knee and left leg that was operated and wires were inserted. Further, a perus disability certificate (Ex.P44) of the injured shows that he suffered 25% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Even though appellant could produce medical bills amounting FAO-359-2011 (O&M) enhanced. He also submitted that loss of income while he was bed considering the 25% permanent disability suffered by the cial diet and conveyance charges was also on the lower side and the same was 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 the present appeal is liable to I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. t of compensation Assessment under “medical expenses/ hospitalization” To prove his case, appellant tendered in the evidence his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A; copy of DDR as Ex. P11; copy of treatment record as Ex.P4; medical bills as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and the disability [8.1]. In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered fracture of medial malleous, left ankle and skin grafting over left knee and left leg that was operated and wires were inserted. Further, a perusal of disability certificate (Ex.P44) of the injured shows that he suffered 25% permanent disability due to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Even though appellant could produce medical bills amounting enhanced. He also submitted that loss of income while he was bed fered by the was also on [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 al is liable to I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper of the case. I find force in the arguments advanced by the To prove his case, appellant tendered in the evidence his affidavit as Ex.PW1/A; copy of DDR as Ex. P11; copy of treatment Ex.P7 and the disability of medial malleous, left ankle and skin grafting over left knee and left leg al of disability certificate (Ex.P44) of the injured shows that he suffered 25% said accident. Even though appellant could produce medical bills amounting TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 4 to Rs. 18,204/ mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and the treatment; permanent disability suffered due to stiffness in left knee and ankle besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. This fact even finds force from the argument that in the aftermath of the accident due to shock and mental agony, a person cannot be presumed to be prudent enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbu Thus, compensation under this head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/ Assessment under “loss of income” [9]. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge quantified the compensation towards "loss of income 60,000/-, due to lack of documentary evidence. Although the appellant produced the income tax return for the assessment year 2007 (Exhibit P10), reflecting Court declined to treat the said document as reliable proof of actual income, on the ground that the appellant had not filed or paid income tax for the preceding assessment year 2006 [9.1]. In the humble opinion of th the assessment year 2007 accepted as prima facie evidence of the appellant’s income. Mere non filing of return for the preceding year 2006 the subsequent I error in disregarding the natural progression or fluctuation of income over the time. Consequently, the assessment of loss of income ought to FAO to Rs. 18,204/- only and Rs. 2,500/- for physiotherapy but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident treatment; permanent disability suffered due to stiffness in left knee and ankle besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, ompensation under this head needs to be reassessed. This fact even finds force from the argument that in the aftermath of the accident due to shock and mental agony, a person cannot be presumed to be prudent enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbu Thus, compensation under this head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/ Assessment under “loss of income” The Learned Additional Sessions Judge quantified the compensation towards "loss of income on account of due to lack of documentary evidence. Although the appellant produced the income tax return for the assessment year 2007 (Exhibit P10), reflecting his annual income Court declined to treat the said document as reliable proof of actual income, on the ground that the appellant had not filed or paid income tax for the preceding assessment year 2006 [9.1]. In the humble opinion of this Court, the income tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 (Ex. P10) ought to have been accepted as prima facie evidence of the appellant’s income. Mere non filing of return for the preceding year 2006-2007 cannot, by itself, render the subsequent ITR unreliable. The learned Trial Court committed an error in disregarding the natural progression or fluctuation of income time. Consequently, the assessment of loss of income ought to FAO-359-2011 (O&M) for physiotherapy but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident treatment; permanent disability suffered due to stiffness in left knee and ankle besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, ompensation under this head needs to be reassessed. This fact even finds force from the argument that in the aftermath of the accident due to shock and mental agony, a person cannot be presumed to be prudent enough to collect all the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes. Thus, compensation under this head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge quantified the on account of disability" as Rs. due to lack of documentary evidence. Although the appellant produced the income tax return for the assessment year 2007–2008 annual income as Rs. 89,825/-, the trial Court declined to treat the said document as reliable proof of actual income, on the ground that the appellant had not filed or paid income tax for the preceding assessment year 2006–2007. is Court, the income tax return for 2008 (Ex. P10) ought to have been accepted as prima facie evidence of the appellant’s income. Mere non- 2007 cannot, by itself, render TR unreliable. The learned Trial Court committed an error in disregarding the natural progression or fluctuation of income time. Consequently, the assessment of loss of income ought to for physiotherapy but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident treatment; permanent disability suffered due to stiffness in left knee and ankle besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, ompensation under this head needs to be reassessed. This fact even finds force from the argument that in the aftermath of the accident due to shock and mental agony, a person cannot be presumed to be rsement purposes. The Learned Additional Sessions Judge quantified the Rs. due to lack of documentary evidence. Although the appellant 2008 , the trial Court declined to treat the said document as reliable proof of actual income, on the ground that the appellant had not filed or paid income is Court, the income tax return for 2008 (Ex. P10) ought to have been - 2007 cannot, by itself, render TR unreliable. The learned Trial Court committed an error in disregarding the natural progression or fluctuation of income time. Consequently, the assessment of loss of income ought to TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 5 have been based on the income disclosed in Ex. P10, i.e., Rs. per annum. [9.2]. Therefore, this Court after giving anxious thoughts to the facts and circumstances of the present case conservatively assesses the income of the appellant/injured @ Rs. 7500/ off) (Rs. 250/ appellant/claimant remained in hospital from 25.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 i.e. 1 day and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said hospitalization period is assessed as Rs. 250/ evidently the moto 25.11.2008 and as per PW.1/A and Ex. received indoor 25.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 and follow physiotherapy for another 6 months after the accident. Thus, it would be safe to assume that appellant would have suffered loss of income for 6 months due to reduced working capacity as he was bed ridden. Therefore, after considering case, loss of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ Rs. 45,000/- (250 x 180). Further, compensation under the head of “loss of future income” after applying the multiplier of 14 as injured was 45 years of age at the tim 3,15,000/- (Rs. 7,500 x 12 x 14 x 25/100). Assessment under other ‘Pecuniary Heads’ [10]. Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 6 months as he was operated upon and would have definitely went for hi FAO have been based on the income disclosed in Ex. P10, i.e., Rs. [9.2]. Therefore, this Court after giving anxious thoughts to the facts and circumstances of the present case conservatively assesses the income of the appellant/injured @ Rs. 7500/ off) (Rs. 250/- per day). Now, as per PW.1/A and Ex.44 appellant/claimant remained in hospital from 25.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 i.e. 1 day and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said hospitalization period is assessed as Rs. 250/ evidently the motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 25.11.2008 and as per PW.1/A and Ex.P indoor medical treatment for accident related injuries from 25.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 and follow-up treatment from PGI besides ysiotherapy for another 6 months after the accident. Thus, it would be safe to assume that appellant would have suffered loss of income for 6 months due to reduced working capacity as he was bed ridden. Therefore, after considering the facts and circumstan case, loss of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ (250 x 180). Further, compensation under the head of “loss of future income” after applying the multiplier of 14 as injured was 45 years of age at the time of motor vehicular accident comes to Rs. (Rs. 7,500 x 12 x 14 x 25/100). Assessment under other ‘Pecuniary Heads’ [10]. Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 6 months as he was operated upon and would have definitely went for hi FAO-359-2011 (O&M) have been based on the income disclosed in Ex. P10, i.e., Rs. 89,825 [9.2]. Therefore, this Court after giving anxious thoughts to the facts and circumstances of the present case conservatively assesses the income of the appellant/injured @ Rs. 7500/- per month (rounded Now, as per PW.1/A and Ex.44 appellant/claimant remained in hospital from 25.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 i.e. 1 day and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said hospitalization period is assessed as Rs. 250/- (250 x 1). Further, r vehicular accident in the present case took place on P44 besides Ex.P7 appellant medical treatment for accident related injuries from up treatment from PGI besides ysiotherapy for another 6 months after the accident. Thus, it would be safe to assume that appellant would have suffered loss of income for 6 months due to reduced working capacity as he was bed ridden. facts and circumstances of the present case, loss of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ (250 x 180). Further, compensation under the head of “loss of future income” after applying the multiplier of 14 as injured was 45 e of motor vehicular accident comes to Rs. Assessment under other ‘Pecuniary Heads’ [10]. Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 6 months as he was operated upon and would have definitely went for his post- 89,825 [9.2]. Therefore, this Court after giving anxious thoughts to the facts and circumstances of the present case conservatively assesses per month (rounded Now, as per PW.1/A and Ex.44 appellant/claimant remained in hospital from 25.11.2008 to 26.11.2008 i.e. 1 day and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said (250 x 1). Further, r vehicular accident in the present case took place on 7 appellant medical treatment for accident related injuries from up treatment from PGI besides ysiotherapy for another 6 months after the accident. Thus, it would be safe to assume that appellant would have suffered loss of income for 6 months due to reduced working capacity as he was bed ridden. ces of the present case, loss of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ (250 x 180). Further, compensation under the head of “loss of future income” after applying the multiplier of 14 as injured was 45 e of motor vehicular accident comes to Rs. [10]. Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 6 months as he - TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 6 operative care. Thus, compensation granted for special diet and conveyance charges @ Rs. 10,000/ is granted under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/. Assessment under ‘non pecuniary heads’ [11]. In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered injuries for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment, spanning over a period of 6 months. In injury cases compensation for mental agony 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 compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 70,000/ Conclusion [12]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner: Sr.No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. FAO operative care. Thus, compensation granted for special diet and conveyance charges @ Rs. 10,000/- is very less and no compensation is granted under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. Assessment under ‘non pecuniary heads’ [11]. In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered injuries for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment, spanning over a period of 6 months. In injury cases ompensation for mental agony as well as 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 inju compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 70,000/ In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the following manner:- Nature Loss of Income (Rs. 250 + Rs. 45,000 + Rs. 3,15,000) Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Pain and Suffering Compensation under other pecuniary head Compensation under non-pecuniary head FAO-359-2011 (O&M) operative care. Thus, compensation granted for special diet and is very less and no compensation is granted under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. Assessment under ‘non pecuniary heads’ [11]. In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered injuries for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment, spanning over a period of 6 months. In injury cases 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 agony suffered by the injured, therefore, the compensation under this head is reassessed as Rs. 70,000/-. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the Amount (in Rs.) Loss of Income (Rs. 250 + Rs. 45,000 + Rs. 3,60,250/- Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Rs. 50,000/- Rs. 70,000/- Compensation under other pecuniary Rs. 1,00,000/- pecuniary head Rs. 70,000/- operative care. Thus, compensation granted for special diet and is very less and no compensation is granted under the head of attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is reassessed @ Rs. [11]. In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered injuries for which he went into the phase of obtaining treatment, spanning over a period of 6 months. In injury cases 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 herefore, the In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 7 [13]. In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, approved in a subsequent judgment titled as vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, grant of interes awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deduct enhanced compensation. [14]. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. August 28, 2025 Tejwinder FAO-359 AMRIT LAL VS. JAGDISH CHAND & OTHERS After uploading of the judgment dated 28.08.2025 in the main case, it has come to the notice of this Court that on account of an inadvertent error, certain wrong calculations have been mentioned in para-12 thereof, which needs to be corrected/ modif FAO Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Amount In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as approved in a subsequent judgment titled as vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, grant of interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deduct enhanced compensation. In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand 2025 359-2011 (O&M) AMRIT LAL VS. JAGDISH CHAND & OTHERS After uploading of the judgment dated 28.08.2025 in the main case, it has come to the notice of this Court that on account of an inadvertent error, certain wrong calculations have been mentioned in 12 thereof, which needs to be corrected/ modif FAO-359-2011 (O&M) Rs. 6,50,250/- Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 1,05,000/- Rs. 5,45,250/- In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance reported as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the t @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be deducted from the In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE AMRIT LAL VS. JAGDISH CHAND & OTHERS After uploading of the judgment dated 28.08.2025 in the main case, it has come to the notice of this Court that on account of an inadvertent error, certain wrong calculations have been mentioned in 12 thereof, which needs to be corrected/ modified as under:- In the view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance (2009) (4) SCC 513 “Puttamma and others the t @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization is justified. Needless to mention here that the amount of ed from the In view of the aforesaid modification, the present appeal stands disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand After uploading of the judgment dated 28.08.2025 in the main case, it has come to the notice of this Court that on account of an inadvertent error, certain wrong calculations have been mentioned in TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document 8 Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. It is ordered accordingly. This modification may be read as part of the earlier order dated 28.08.2025 by substituting the aforementioned table in para the original decision. Registry is directed to delete the earlier order dated 28.08.2025, so as to upload the complete/modi 12.09.2025 Tejwinder FAO Nature Loss of Income (Rs. 250 + Rs. 45,000 + Rs. 3,15,000) Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Compensation under other pecuniary heads Compensation under non pecuniary heads Total Compensation Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Enhanced Compensation It is ordered accordingly. This modification may be read as part of the earlier order dated 28.08.2025 by substituting the aforementioned table in para the original decision. Registry is directed to delete the earlier order dated 28.08.2025, so as to upload the complete/modi FAO-359-2011 (O&M) Amount (in Rs.) Loss of Income (Rs. 250 + Rs. Rs. 3,60,250/- Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Rs. 50,000/- Compensation under other Rs. 1,00,000/- Compensation under non- Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 5,80,250/- Amount Awarded by the Rs. 1,05,000/- Rs. 4,75,250/- This modification may be read as part of the earlier order dated 28.08.2025 by substituting the aforementioned table in para-12 of Registry is directed to delete the earlier order dated 28.08.2025, so as to upload the complete/modified order. (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE This modification may be read as part of the earlier order 12 of Registry is directed to delete the earlier order dated TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.09.25 23:45 I agree to specified portions of this document