Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO(MV) No. 4066 of 2013 Reserved on: 20.07.2026 Date of decision: 10.08.2026 Date of uploading on website: 10.08.2026 _____________________________________________________ Sarita ...Appellant Versus The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & another …Respondents _____________________________________________________ Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge 1 Whether approved for reporting? _____________________________________________________ For the appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No. 1: Mr. Deepak Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate. Respondent No. 2 ex parte. Sushil Kukreja, Judge The instant appeal is maintained by the appellant- petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the MV Act’) against the award dated 28.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, District Solan, HP (for short “learned Tribunal below”), in MACT Petition No.27-S/2 of 2008, with a 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) prayer to enhance the awarded amount of compensation. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on23.07.2007 the petitioner was travelling in vehicle, having registration No. HP-01S-0173, owned and being driven by Shri Mohinder Singh, and around 01:30 a.m., when the vehicle reached near Mansar, suddenly a stray cattle appeared on the road. The driver of the vehicle, respondent No. 2-Mohinder Singh, could not apply brake, due to high speed, and turned the steering towards its right side, consequently the vehicle fell down from the road and the petitioner sustained injuries. As per the petitioner, the aforesaid accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. The petitioner further averred in her claim petition before the learned Tribunal below that at the time of the accident she was 31 years of age and she remained admitted in hospital from 23.07.2007 to 16.08.2007 and plaster remained on her leg for 45 days. The petitioner, at the time of the accident, was working in Himachal Exicom Communications, Solan, on monthly salary of Rs.5500/-. As per the petitioner, due to the injuries sustained by her in the aforesaid accident, she was not able to do her routine works and also unable to carry anything heavy in her hand and also unable to sit in squatting posture. The petitioner spent Rs.30,000/- on her treatment. Hence, she prayed for grant 3 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) of compensation. 3. Respondent No. 1-Oriental Insurance Company filed its separate reply, wherein it was averred that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the provisions of the MV Act. The replying respondent further averred that the petitioner, being in service, might have got the medical reimbursement from her employer and prayed for the dismissal of the petition. 4. Respondent No. 2 (owner/driver) contested the petition and filed reply, wherein, it has been averred that on 23.07.2007 while driving the offending vehicle, he was coming from Chail to Solan and a stray cattle appeared on the road, due to which he could not control the vehicle and the same fell down, while he tried to save the stray cattle. As per the replying respondent, the offending vehicle was owned by him and it was insured with respondent No. 1-Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No. 1). 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal below framed the following issues on 22.12.2008: “1. Whether the injuries were suffered by the petitioner on account of rash and negligent driving by the respondent No. 2, as alleged? OPP. 4 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, amount therefore? OPP 3. If issue No. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the petitioner as to whether respondent No. 1 would be responsible to make the payment of the compensation amount? OPP 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. It so its effect? OPE-1 5. Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged, if so its effect? OPR-1 6. Relief.” 6. The parties led their evidence and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the claim petition was allowed and the petitioner was held entitled for compensation of Rs.2,15,600/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of the awarded amount by respondent No. 1-Oriental Insurance Company. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant/ petitioner preferred the instant appeal under Section 173 of MV Act for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-petitioner contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal below is arbitrary and is liable to be modified on the ground that the learned 5 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) Tribunal below had granted inadequate compensation to the petitioner, despite the fact that she has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%. He further contended that in view of the evidence led on record by the petitioner, the compensation amount deserves to be enhanced in favour of the petitioner. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1/Insurance Company supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. He contended that the impugned award has been passed by the learned Tribunal below after appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. 10. I have heard the Mr. Anand Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Deepak Gupta, Senior Advocate, for respondent No. 1 and also gone through the entire record carefully. 11. Perusal of the record makes it clear that the petitioner had sustained injuries in a motor accident, which took place on 23.07.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.HP-01S-0173 by respondent No.2. The petitioner has also suffered disability as per disability certificate Ext. PW-3/A, issued by Chairman, Handicapped Board, Solan, perusal of which reveals that she had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20% with respect to her left upper limb and right lower limb. 6 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) 12. Now the question, which arises for consideration is as to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled with respect to the injuries and also with respect to the disability suffered by her with regard to her left upper limb and right lower limb. 13. The law with respect to the grant of compensation in injury cases is well-settled. The injured is entitled to pecuniary as well as non-pecuniary damages. Pecuniary damages also known as special damages are generally designed to make good the pecuniary loss which is capable of being calculated in terms of money whereas non-pecuniary damages are incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations. The pecuniary or special damages, generally include the expenses incurred by the claimants on his treatment, special diet, conveyance, cost of nursing/attending, loss of income, loss of earning capacity and other material loss, which may require any special treatment or aid to the insured for the rest of his life. The general damages or the non-pecuniary loss include the compensation for mental or physical shock, pain and sufferings, loss of amenities of life, loss of marriage prospects etc. 14. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551, a road accident resulted in 100% disability due 7 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) to paraplegia below waist to a lawyer. The Supreme Court observed that no amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by Courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame. In its very nature whenever a Tribunal or a Court is required to fix the amount of compensation in cases of accident, it involves some guess work, some hypothetical consideration, some amount of sympathy linked with the nature of the disability caused. But all the aforesaid elements have to be viewed with objective standards. When compensation is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of amenity of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to be taken into account including his age, the unusual deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his future life. Para-9 of the said judgment is reproduced as under:- “9. Broadly speaking while fixing an amount of compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are those which the victim has actually incurred and which are capable of being calculated in terms of money; whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are incapable of being assessed 8 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) by arithmetical calculations. In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages may include expenses incurred by the claimant: (i) medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far non- pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (i) damages for mental and physical shock, pain and suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of amenities of life which may include a variety of matters i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for the loss of expectation of life, i.e., on account of injury the normal longevity of the person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience, hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and mental stress in life. 10. It cannot be disputed that because of the accident the appellant who was an active practising lawyer has become paraplegic on account of the injuries sustained by him. It is really difficult in this background to assess the exact amount of compensation for the pain and agony suffered by the appellant and for having become a lifelong handicapped. No amount of compensation can restore the physical frame of the appellant. That is why it has been said by courts that whenever any amount is determined as the compensation payable for any injury suffered during an accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a broken and shattered physical frame.” 15. In Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254, the road accident resulted in 100% permanent disability to a final year engineering student. The Supreme Court held the functional disability to be 70% to compute the loss of earning capacity according to the multiplier method. The Supreme Court further held that the whole idea of compensation is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no 9 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for what he had suffered. Para-10 of the judgment reads as under:- “10. In some cases for personal injury, the claim could be in respect of life time's earnings lost because, though he will live, he cannot earn his living. In others, the claim may be made for partial loss of earnings. Each case has to be considered in the light of its own facts and at the end, one must ask whether the sum awarded is a fair and reasonable sum. The conventional basis of assessing compensation in personal injury cases- and that is now recognized mode as to the proper measure of compensation is taking an appropriate multiplier of an appropriate multiplicand.” 16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, the Supreme Court laid down the following principles for computation of compensation in injury cases:- "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 SC 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. 10 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) (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. 7. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii)- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non- pecuniary damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) -involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/ deprivation/ disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(a). We are concerned with that assessment in this case. ----- ----- ----- ----- 19. We may now summarize 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 disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that 11 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) 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.” 17. In the instant case, perusal of disability certificate Ext. PW-3/A reveals that the petitioner had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% in the accident. The case of the petitioner is that prior to the accident, she was earning Rs. 5,500/- per month, as, at the relevant time, she was working in Himachal Exicom Communications, Solan. However, after the accident, she was not in a position to do any work on account of disability suffered by her. On the basis of entire evidence led on record, the learned Tribunal below had rightly assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.5,500/- per month. However, the learned Tribunal below had committed an error in taking the disability of the petitioner as 10% while assessing the future loss of income. The Medical Officer has categorically stated that the petitioner will have difficulty in squatting and sit cross leg position and will have difficulty in carrying heavy load over long distance. 18. Thus, after fixing the notional monthly income of the 12 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) petitioner at Rs.5500/- and after taking the percentage of disability as 20%, the monthly loss of the income of the petitioner comes to Rs.1100/- and her annual loss of income comes to Rs.13,200/-. 19. It has been held in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi & ors., (2017) 16 SCC 680, that while determining the income, in case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary and below the age of 40 years, an addition of 40% of the established income to the income of the deceased towards future prospects should be made. Paras 59.3 and 59.4 of the said judgment read as follows: “59.3. While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax 59.4 In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component.” 20. In the instant case, since the petitioner was aged about 31 years and had no permanent job, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra), an addition of 40% of the notional monthly income of the petitioner has to be made towards future prospects as she was aged below 13 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) 40 years. Accordingly, by adding 40% of monthly income towards future prospects, the amount comes to Rs.18,480/-(Rs.13200/- +5280/-)annually. 21. In Sarla Verma & others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, the Apex Court held that the multiplier to be used should be as under:- “42. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M- 9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.” 22. In the case on hand, since the petitioner was 31 years of age at the time of the accident, therefore, as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra), the appropriate multiplier would be ‘16’. Thus, future loss of income comes to Rs.2,95,680/- (Rs.18480x16=Rs.2,95,680). 23. The learned Tribunal below had rightly awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- for attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- on account of loss of income, as the petitioner remained under treatment for about 70 days. The learned Tribunal below had failed to award transportation charges to the petitioner. Thus, Rs.10,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges to the petitioner. 14 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) 24. In addition thereto, the learned Tribunal below had also awarded Rs.30,000/- to the petitioner as damages for pain and sufferings, which, in the opinion of this Court, is inadequate. Since, the petitioner had sustained multiple injuries and also suffered disability to the extent of 20%, she is awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings. The learned Tribunal below had also awarded Rs.30,000/- under the head ‘future discomfort and inconvenience’, which, in the opinion of this Court, is inadequate. This head must take into account all aspects of a normal life that have been lost due to the injury caused and disability suffered by the petitioner. As per R. D. Hattangadi's case (supra), this includes a variety of matters such as the inability to walk, run or sit etc. In the present case, keeping in mind these factors as well as the age of the petitioner, since the injury suffered has affected the amenities of life of the petitioner, it would be proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head ‘loss of amenities of life’. 25. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the total amount of compensation payable to the petitioner is reworked as under: 1. Medical expenses Rs.30,000/- 2. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/- 3. Loss of income Rs.10,000/- 15 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:HHC:33271-DB ) 4. Future loss of income Rs.2,95,680/- 5. Pain and sufferings Rs.50,000/- 6. Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/- 7. Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.4,55,680/- 26. Consequently, in view of detailed discussion made here-in-above and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the petitioner is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,55,680/-. The remaining terms of the impugned award, including the interest component, shall remain the same. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending application(s), if any. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 10th August, 2026 (virender)