IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 223 Rajesh Kumar Dalbir Singh @ Ashish & Others CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. seeking enhanc Motor Accident Claims Tribuna Tribunal”), vide Award dated 01.07 dated 22.01.2016 filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 2. basis of pleadings and oral & documentary concluded that the appellant/injured IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rajesh Kumar Vs. Dalbir Singh @ Ashish & Others HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh Rana, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Singal, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. Present appeal has been filed by the injured seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.1,72 Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (hereinafter referred to as “the vide Award dated 01.07.2017 passed dated 22.01.2016 filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). Brief facts of the case are that the pleadings and oral & documentary concluded that the appellant/injured-claimant had suffered injuries in a IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO-1140-2018(O&M) Date of decision: 29.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Ms. Jasleen Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Singh Rana, Advocate Neeraj Khanna, Advocate for has been filed by the injured-claimant ement of compensation of Rs.1,72,305/- awarded by the (hereinafter referred to as “the passed in Claim Petition No.52 dated 22.01.2016 filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). of the case are that the ld. Tribunal on the pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced before it claimant had suffered injuries in a 5 claimant the (hereinafter referred to as “the Petition No.52 dated 22.01.2016 filed by the appellant under Sections 166 and 140 of the Tribunal on the evidence adduced before it claimant had suffered injuries in a SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing registration No.DL (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3 interest @ 9% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and se liable to pay the registered against respondent No.1 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station Butana. 3. compensation by sub of loss of income to the appellant appellant. Nothing has been granted towards cost of transportation. Even no attendant charges have been awarded despite the fact that appellant had remained bedridden during hospitalisation. discharge from hospital and during recuperation, he was totally upon attendant for his day Rs.25,000/- prayed that the compensation be enhanced. 4. vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company who submits that the impugned Award is just and motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing registration No.DL referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. The above-said compensation was 9% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and se liable to pay the same. Even FIR No.333 dated 14.10.2015 (Ex.PW4/E) was registered against respondent No.1 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Police Station Butana. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation by submitting that nothing has been granted under the head of loss of income to the appellant for the period of treatment of the Nothing has been granted towards cost of transportation. Even attendant charges have been awarded despite the fact that appellant had remained bedridden during hospitalisation. discharge from hospital and during recuperation, he was totally upon attendant for his day-to-day work. Further, only has been awarded for pain and suffering. It is accordingly prayed that the compensation be enhanced. The aforesaid submissions of the appellant are vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company who submits that the impugned Award is just and motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.10.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of Innova car bearing registration No.DL-4CAE-4041 referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by said compensation was granted along with 9% per annum. Respondents were held jointly and severally Even FIR No.333 dated 14.10.2015 (Ex.PW4/E) was registered against respondent No.1 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of mitting that nothing has been granted under the head for the period of treatment of the Nothing has been granted towards cost of transportation. Even attendant charges have been awarded despite the fact that the appellant had remained bedridden during hospitalisation. Even after discharge from hospital and during recuperation, he was totally dependent Further, only a meagre amount of pain and suffering. It is accordingly prayed that the compensation be enhanced. The aforesaid submissions of the appellant are vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company who submits that the impugned Award is just and fair and legal, 5 motor vehicular accident that took place on 12.10.2015 due to the rash and 4041 referred to as “the offending vehicle”) by respondent No.1. The offending vehicle was owned by respondent No.2 and insured by along with verally Even FIR No.333 dated 14.10.2015 (Ex.PW4/E) was registered against respondent No.1 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC at Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of mitting that nothing has been granted under the head for the period of treatment of the Nothing has been granted towards cost of transportation. Even the Even after dependent a meagre amount of pain and suffering. It is accordingly The aforesaid submissions of the appellant are vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance , SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document and therefore, requires no modification. for dismissal of the present appeal 5. 6. the case file in great detail. 7. that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered fracture of legs besides other multiple serious and grievous injuries. undergone treatm inserted in his voluminous documentary evidence in the form of his discharge summary (Ex.PW3/1); medical bills (Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/13); copy of MLR (Ex.PW4/C); Disability Certificate (Ex.P1). produced various other medical bills and receipts. Ex.PW3/3 to Ex.PW3/9, Ex.PW3/11, Ex.P2 to Ex.P53, Ex.P55 to Ex.P57 and Ex.P67 to Ex.P73 are the bills for Rs.67,305/ appellant had also got examined Dr. Tarun Goel the appellant was admitted in his hospital on 13.10.2015 and was discharged on 19.10.2015. which Rs.60,000/ proved that treatment. and therefore, requires no modification. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and file in great detail. Perusal of record of the case shows that it is not denied that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered fracture of besides other multiple serious and grievous injuries. undergone treatment at Shri Hari Hospital inserted in his right leg. By way of proof the voluminous documentary evidence in the form of his discharge summary ; medical bills (Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/13); copy of MLR (Ex.PW4/C); Disability Certificate (Ex.P1). Besides this, the appellant had produced various other medical bills and receipts. Ex.PW3/3 to Ex.PW3/9, Ex.PW3/11, Ex.P2 to Ex.P53, Ex.P55 to Ex.P57 and Ex.P67 to Ex.P73 are the bills for Rs.67,305/- which he spent on medicines and medical tests. appellant had also got examined Dr. Tarun Goel the appellant was admitted in his hospital on 13.10.2015 and was discharged on 19.10.2015. Operation was performed on the appellant for Rs.60,000/- was charged vide bill/receipt (Ex.PW3/2). proved that the appellant had spent Rs.1,27,305/ Learned counsel accordingly prays No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. learned counsel for the parties and perused Perusal of record of the case shows that it is not denied that in the accident in question, the appellant had suffered fracture of both besides other multiple serious and grievous injuries. The appellant had Shri Hari Hospital, Karnal where a rod was also By way of proof the appellant and produced voluminous documentary evidence in the form of his discharge summary ; medical bills (Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/13); copy of MLR Besides this, the appellant had produced various other medical bills and receipts. Ex.PW3/3 to Ex.PW3/9, Ex.PW3/11, Ex.P2 to Ex.P53, Ex.P55 to Ex.P57 and Ex.P67 to Ex.P73 are the spent on medicines and medical tests. The appellant had also got examined Dr. Tarun Goel/PW3 who had deposed that the appellant was admitted in his hospital on 13.10.2015 and was Operation was performed on the appellant for was charged vide bill/receipt (Ex.PW3/2). As such, it was the appellant had spent Rs.1,27,305/- on his medical 5 Learned counsel accordingly prays d Perusal of record of the case shows that it is not denied both had Karnal where a rod was also appellant and produced voluminous documentary evidence in the form of his discharge summary ; medical bills (Ex.PW3/2 to Ex.PW3/13); copy of MLR Besides this, the appellant had produced various other medical bills and receipts. Ex.PW3/3 to Ex.PW3/9, Ex.PW3/11, Ex.P2 to Ex.P53, Ex.P55 to Ex.P57 and Ex.P67 to Ex.P73 are the The /PW3 who had deposed that the appellant was admitted in his hospital on 13.10.2015 and was Operation was performed on the appellant for it was on his medical SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. evidence of Panipat. As per the Disability Certificate, the appellant had suffered 20% permanent disability qua a particular limb. had assessed disability of the appellant had granted Rs.20,000/ Learned Tribunal further granted Rs.25,000/ Thus, granting total 9. of accident, he was 3 running a milk dairy the accident, he had become bedridden and was unable to do any work. is nowhere denied that the accident in question, the appellant had suffered fracture of both legs and rod was inserted in his right leg. facts, it is clear that nothing has been awarded to the appellant towards loss of income; even multiplier has not been applied. 10. compensation Disability Certificate (Ex.P1) was proved from the evidence of PW7/Sheela Rani, Clerk from the office of Panipat. As per the Disability Certificate, the appellant had suffered 20% permanent disability qua a particular limb. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal had assessed disability of the appellant towards had granted Rs.20,000/- (Rs.2,000/- x 10) towards permanent disability. Learned Tribunal further granted Rs.25,000/ Thus, granting total compensation of Rs.1,72,305/ It was the pleaded case of the of accident, he was 32 years old and working as a running a milk dairy and earning Rs.30,000/ the accident, he had become bedridden and was unable to do any work. e denied that the accident in question, the appellant had suffered fracture of both legs and rod was inserted in his right leg. facts, it is clear that nothing has been awarded to the appellant towards loss of income; attendant charges, special diet, transportation charges; and even multiplier has not been applied. In view of the above, present appeal compensation awarded to the appellant is re Loss of income on account of functional disability Income –Rs.7,600/- (minimum wages Multiplier – Rs.7,600/- x 16 x 12 = Rs.14,59,200/ 10% functional disability = Rs.1,45,920/ Disability Certificate (Ex.P1) was proved from the , Clerk from the office of Civil Surgeon, Panipat. As per the Disability Certificate, the appellant had suffered 20% Accordingly, the learned Tribunal towards whole body as 10%; and x 10) towards permanent disability. Learned Tribunal further granted Rs.25,000/- against pain and suffering. compensation of Rs.1,72,305/-. It was the pleaded case of the appellant that at the time years old and working as a skilled labourer besides ,000/- per month. However, due to the accident, he had become bedridden and was unable to do any work. It e denied that the accident in question, the appellant had suffered fracture of both legs and rod was inserted in his right leg. From the above facts, it is clear that nothing has been awarded to the appellant towards ial diet, transportation charges; and present appeal is allowed, and awarded to the appellant is re-assessed as follows: - Loss of income on account of functional disability: (minimum wages at relevant time) x 16 x 12 = Rs.14,59,200/- 10% functional disability = Rs.1,45,920/- loss of income; 5 Disability Certificate (Ex.P1) was proved from the Civil Surgeon, Panipat. As per the Disability Certificate, the appellant had suffered 20% Accordingly, the learned Tribunal whole body as 10%; and x 10) towards permanent disability. against pain and suffering. appellant that at the time besides per month. However, due to It e denied that the accident in question, the appellant had suffered From the above facts, it is clear that nothing has been awarded to the appellant towards ial diet, transportation charges; and , and SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11. 12. 29.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Future treatment – Rs.50,000/-; Loss of income during treatment income) (Rs.7,600/- x 2); Attendant charges – Rs.1 lakh; Special diet – Rs.20,000/-; Transportation charges – Rs.20,000/ Total – Rs.3,51,120/- Present appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No ; Loss of income during treatment – Rs.15,200/- (2 months’ Rs.20,000/-; Present appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 5 (2 months’ SUNENA 2025.05.02 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document