IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 218 Tarlochan Singh Harjit Singh & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tribunal”), vide Award dated dated 17.01.2014 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. the basis of pleadings and oral & concluded that IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Tarlochan Singh Vs. & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Vinay Puri, Advocate for the appellant (through VC). Mr. Saurabh Bahmani, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rupnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide Award dated 19.12.2014 passed in dated 17.01.2014 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it concluded that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-4149-2015(O&M) Date of decision: 12.05.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA (through VC). Mr. Saurabh Bahmani, Advocate Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Present appeal has been filed by the injured-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,87,193/- awarded by the (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in Claim Petition No.10 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on documentary evidence adduced before it the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular 6 claimant awarded by the (hereinafter referred to as “the No.10 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act learned Tribunal on documentary evidence adduced before it the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular SUNENA 2025.05.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document accident that took place on negligent driving of referred to as “the offend vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 The above-said compensation was granted along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the clai 3. alia submits that Ambuja Cement Factory, Rupnagar per month. multiple and grievous injuries in st body because of which he was referred to PGI Chandigarh from where he is still under treatment. The appellant had spent more treatment. The appellant is the only breadwinner of his family but due to the accident, he has become permanently disabled and is unemployed. The appellant had remained out of job for 5 months which is clear from the evidence of PW3 V Factory, Rupnagar. for 5 months. However, loss of income has been given only for 4 months. 4. only for a sum of Rs.2 lakh on his treatment. accident that took place on 19.09.2012 at about 9 pm negligent driving of truck bearing registration No. referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1 cle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. said compensation was granted along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till its realisation. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured alia submits that prior to the accident, the appellant was working with Ambuja Cement Factory, Rupnagar and getting a salary of about Rs.20 Due to the accident in question, the appellant had suffered multiple and grievous injuries in stomach, on head and other parts body because of which he was referred to PGI Chandigarh from where he is still under treatment. The appellant had spent more The appellant is the only breadwinner of his family but due to the accident, he has become permanently disabled and is unemployed. The appellant had remained out of job for 5 months which is clear from the of PW3 Varinder Sehgal, Deputy Manager at Ambuja Cement Factory, Rupnagar. As such, loss of income had to be granted by the Tribunal for 5 months. However, loss of income has been given only for 4 months. Further, the learned Tribunal a sum of Rs.45,000/-; whereas the appellant had spent more than Rs.2 lakh on his treatment. It is submitted that the p. 2 at about 9 pm due to the rash and bearing registration No.HP-12-D-2355 (hereinafter ing vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending and insured by respondent No.3. said compensation was granted along with interest @ 6% per m petition till its realisation. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured-claimant inter prior to the accident, the appellant was working with getting a salary of about Rs.20,000/- to the accident in question, the appellant had suffered omach, on head and other parts of his body because of which he was referred to PGI Chandigarh from where he is still under treatment. The appellant had spent more than Rs.2 lakh on his The appellant is the only breadwinner of his family but due to the accident, he has become permanently disabled and is unemployed. The appellant had remained out of job for 5 months which is clear from the arinder Sehgal, Deputy Manager at Ambuja Cement As such, loss of income had to be granted by the Tribunal for 5 months. However, loss of income has been given only for 4 months. Tribunal has accepted medical bills ; whereas the appellant had spent more than It is submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to 6 due to the rash and after . The offending and insured by respondent No.3. said compensation was granted along with interest @ 6% per claimant inter prior to the accident, the appellant was working with - to the accident in question, the appellant had suffered of his body because of which he was referred to PGI Chandigarh from where he is than Rs.2 lakh on his The appellant is the only breadwinner of his family but due to the accident, he has become permanently disabled and is unemployed. The appellant had remained out of job for 5 months which is clear from the arinder Sehgal, Deputy Manager at Ambuja Cement As such, loss of income had to be granted by the Tribunal lls ; whereas the appellant had spent more than learned Tribunal failed to SUNENA 2025.05.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document take into account the fact offending vehicle respondent No.2 opted not to contest the Claim Petition Company had never produced any evidence before the Tribunal including Insurance Policy despite several opportunities. proceeded against ex parte. proven. Learned counsel accordingly pray the appellant be enhanced. 5. Company assisted by learned coun oppose the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has suffered no permanent disability. Learn appeal. 6. 7. the case file in great detail. behalf of the appellant 8. pleaded case of the appellant that in the accident in question, he had received “...multiple and grievous injuries in stomach, on head and other take into account the fact “that the respondent No.2 was owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance Company had joined their hands as the respondent No.2 opted not to contest the Claim Petition Company had never produced any evidence before the Tribunal including Insurance Policy despite several opportunities. proceeded against ex parte.” As such, case of the appellant was duly proven. Learned counsel accordingly prays that compensation awarded to the appellant be enhanced. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company assisted by learned counsel for respondent No.1 oppose the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the It is submitted that the appellant has suffered no permanent Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present No other argument is made on behalf of the I have heard learned counsel for the the case file in great detail. I find no merit in the submissions adva behalf of the appellant. Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant that in the accident in question, he had “...multiple and grievous injuries in stomach, on head and other p. 3 that the respondent No.2 was owner of the urance Company had joined their hands as the respondent No.2 opted not to contest the Claim Petition and Insurance Company had never produced any evidence before the Tribunal including Insurance Policy despite several opportunities. Respondent No.2 was As such, case of the appellant was duly s that compensation awarded to Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance sel for respondent No.1 vehemently oppose the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the It is submitted that the appellant has suffered no permanent ed counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. learned counsel for the parties and perused I find no merit in the submissions advanced on Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant that in the accident in question, he had “...multiple and grievous injuries in stomach, on head and other 6 that the respondent No.2 was owner of the urance Company had joined their hands as the and Insurance Company had never produced any evidence before the Tribunal including was As such, case of the appellant was duly s that compensation awarded to Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance vehemently oppose the prayer made on behalf of the appellant and submits that no ground is made out to enhance the compensation awarded to the It is submitted that the appellant has suffered no permanent ed counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present d nced on Perusal of record of the case shows that it was the pleaded case of the appellant that in the accident in question, he had “...multiple and grievous injuries in stomach, on head and other SUNENA 2025.05.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document parts of his body... produced no doctor to prove his injuries. Only a bald statement has been made by the appellant without any evidence in support. permanent disability of the appellant also remains unproved as even Disability Certificate has been brought on record by the appellant. appellant only produced Discharge Certificate (Ex.P However, even no doctor or any other medical staff has been examined to prove the said documents. Yet, the learned Tribunal medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 are concerned, this Court is of considered view that the claimant has proved all these medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and there is no need to call the person certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and due to this, non would not fatal to the case of the claimant...” Rs.45,193/- towards medical bills and receipts (Ex.P2 to 9. appellant that due to the accident, he had remained absent from duty from 01.09.2012 to 30.01.2013. In support, the appellant Varinder Sehgal, Deputy Manager at Ambuja where the appellant is stated to have worked. parts of his body...”. Perusal of record further produced no doctor to prove his injuries. Only a bald statement has been made by the appellant without any evidence in support. permanent disability of the appellant also remains unproved as even Disability Certificate has been brought on record by the appellant. appellant only produced Medical bills and receipts (Ex.P2 to Ex.P Discharge Certificate (Ex.P-52), transportation bills (Ex.P even the same have not been proved in accordance with law as no doctor or any other medical staff has been examined to prove the said . Yet, the learned Tribunal had opined that medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 are concerned, this Court is of considered view that the claimant has proved all these medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and there is no need to call the person, who had issued these bills, receipts and discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and due to this, non would not fatal to the case of the claimant...” towards medical bills and receipts (Ex.P2 to It has next been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that due to the accident, he had remained absent from duty from 01.09.2012 to 30.01.2013. In support, the appellant Varinder Sehgal, Deputy Manager at Ambuja where the appellant is stated to have worked. Page 4 of 6 further shows that the appellant had produced no doctor to prove his injuries. Only a bald statement has been made by the appellant without any evidence in support. The alleged permanent disability of the appellant also remains unproved as even no Disability Certificate has been brought on record by the appellant. The Medical bills and receipts (Ex.P2 to Ex.P-51), ), transportation bills (Ex.P-53 to Ex.P-61). the same have not been proved in accordance with law as no doctor or any other medical staff has been examined to prove the said had opined that “...So far as the medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 are concerned, this Court is of considered view that the claimant has proved all these medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and there is no , who had issued these bills, receipts and discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and due to this, non-examination of chemist would not fatal to the case of the claimant...”and had accordingly granted towards medical bills and receipts (Ex.P2 to Ex.P-51). It has next been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that due to the accident, he had remained absent from duty from 01.09.2012 to 30.01.2013. In support, the appellant had produced PW3 Varinder Sehgal, Deputy Manager at Ambuja Cement Factory, Rupnagar where the appellant is stated to have worked. PW3 had deposed that 6 shows that the appellant had produced no doctor to prove his injuries. Only a bald statement has been The alleged no The ), ). the same have not been proved in accordance with law as no doctor or any other medical staff has been examined to prove the said the medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 are concerned, this Court is of considered view that the claimant has proved all these medical bills, receipts, discharge certificate Ex.P2 to Ex.P52 and there is no , who had issued these bills, receipts and discharge examination of chemist and had accordingly granted It has next been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that due to the accident, he had remained absent from duty from PW3 Cement Factory, Rupnagar PW3 had deposed that SUNENA 2025.05.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document appellant had remained absent from work for five months from 1.9.2012 to 30.1.2013. However, the from the fact tha claiming to have remained absent 01.09.2012. remained admitted in hospital from 20.09.2012 to 03.10.2012 Tribunal thus, own case of the appellant that he was getting salary of Rs.23,076/ month. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had held the appellant entitled to loss of income of Rs.92,000/ awarded Rs.30,000/ attendant charges 10. compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘ Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither appellant had remained absent from work for five months from 1.9.2012 to However, the utter falsity of the said statement from the fact that the accident itself is of 19.09.2012 claiming to have remained absent since before the accident, 01.09.2012. Even as per Discharge Summary (Ex.P remained admitted in hospital from 20.09.2012 to 03.10.2012 hus, correctly assessed loss of income as own case of the appellant that he was getting salary of Rs.23,076/ month. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had held the appellant entitled to loss of income of Rs.92,000/- (Rs.23,000/- x 4). Learned Tribunal had further awarded Rs.30,000/- towards mental pain and agony; Rs.20,000/ attendant charges; and thus, awarding total compensation of From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the compensation granted to the appellant. No doubt Chapter a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of profit. Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘State of Haryana & Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither p. 5 appellant had remained absent from work for five months from 1.9.2012 to falsity of the said statements is borne out t the accident itself is of 19.09.2012; whereas appellant is since before the accident, from as per Discharge Summary (Ex.P-52), the appellant had remained admitted in hospital from 20.09.2012 to 03.10.2012. The learned loss of income as ₹92,000/-. It was the own case of the appellant that he was getting salary of Rs.23,076/- per month. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had held the appellant entitled to x 4). Learned Tribunal had further towards mental pain and agony; Rs.20,000/- for warding total compensation of Rs.1,87,193/-. From the above facts, it is clear that a very just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant. Nothing whatsoever has been shown to this Court that would merit enhancement of the No doubt Chapter-12 of the Act is a beneficial legislation yet, as cautioned by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same cannot be allowed to be treated as a windfall or a source of State of Haryana & Another Vs. Jasbir Kaur & Others’ Law Finder Doc ID # 64043 and ‘Divisional Controller K.S.R.T.C. Vs. Mahadev Shetty’, (2003) 7 SCC 197, has held that the amount of compensation should be just and reasonable, it should neither 6 appellant had remained absent from work for five months from 1.9.2012 to is borne out ; whereas appellant is from 52), the appellant had . The learned . It was the per month. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had held the appellant entitled to x 4). Learned Tribunal had further for . SUNENA 2025.05.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document be a bonanza nor a source of pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation, which therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of Others” 1994 Volume that misplaced sympathy, generosity and guiding factor for determining the compensation. 11. 12. 12.05.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: be a bonanza nor a source of profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a compensation, which therefore, does not warrant the interference of this Court. In the case of “General Manager, KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & Others” 1994 Volume-II SCC 176, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and guiding factor for determining the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No p. 6 profit but at the same time it should not be a pittance. Thus, all that has to be determined in the facts of a given case is, that the compensation accorded is ‘just’. In my considered view, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has awarded a more than ‘just’ compensation, which therefore, does not warrant the interference of this KSRTC Vs. Susamma Thomas & the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that misplaced sympathy, generosity and benevolence cannot be the guiding factor for determining the compensation. In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 6 SUNENA 2025.05.14 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document