! "# $!%&'&"() *+,+,- *, . / 0 ,,,,11!22( ' /!3'4' 0 0 ,,,!'1"($!( ' , 0 ,,,,11!22( /!3'4' 0 0 ,,,!'1"($!( ' , / . ,,,,11!22( /!3'4' 0 0 ,,,!'1"($!( ' ) 56 , 0 0/ 0 ! " # $$ %& '( ) ***** 0/ 0 , ,32 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment + $ $)( ( ( , -$) '(+$ #.#"3 '7"3 83&94(2:/ # "" 0 1!!#"3 '7"3 8% : ,2 $)( # , (, $)0 3( ( ,, , , , +4$ ,, 56% 1%"" .7!3!&(# !3 3!#!33!$ " ' "##!($&(; <!7&%2!/ $) '( $ ,'+' " $) ( , ( ,2 '( $ ,'+' 7 =3>& 0&(;7 $)( ( # ,, ( $)( - '( $ ,'+' ! $)( 8 %0 3( (, + $ , , 56%-%81 $) ( ( AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 9( , , ($) +$ % ! " # $ %# & # " + 7 , , , , ( +$ (6 8% , 6 7!8% $)( # , 6 --7 8% ( ( 0 3( (, , :1; (( , ( < )$$) ) ) ! 9 , ,, $ $) ( +( $ $ 1 + )= $ ( ( ( + , , ( = $ +$ ) ,, , , , AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment - 4 $ , 56% 18"" $) %$ $ $) , , , ,) , = $ 2 ( , (, ( $ $ ( $ $( ( ( $ 2 ( $ 9 $ ( ) ( ) 2 > ( ( > ) ( $ ($ $) 2 ( , +$ , ( ,) = 2 +$ , ( 4 ( ,?4 $(7;( )$ ( ,$ ) 5 ( $ = ( $ ) % ) ( AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment ( $ 2 , , > (, $ , ) , = $ ( + > (, , 4 4 , $)( )(, @ )(6 --7 8%$ ( ) ( ( $ & 1."/#'' 7."/#''"! ! !.-/6 ' 6 .'/ " # $ % ./#''7! & 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that adequate compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal with well reasoned justification in all the petitions and no interference in the said awards is called for and appeals in hand be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION IN '()*+)(),,- , KUNTI DEVI VS. ROHTASH AND OTHERS, ARISING OUT OF PETITION NO. 26 OF 2003:- '( , ( ( ( A AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment " ( B$ $ $)5 B$#(' * &<&2 +-? 0 0@!$ '7!!3 7=!$ ($ 7!3' /', "7$, =!!2 ($ (" 7!3 $ ,( ( ( +$ ( $ +> C $ D +$ ( ( ( ( ( +$ ( ( $ ) , , ( ( & $ , $ , $ $ $ $ )( ( ( ( $$ $ , $ >$ $) ( & $ ()( ), ) $ $ , , ( , ( ( = $$) 4 , $% ( " +( $) ( ( () ,2 = 7 ( , E, 6 8%( +$ ( ) ( $6 8% () 5 F$#(' ./#''1! AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 7 ". / () $( $ ( ) ( ) ( 8 ( , ' = ( $ $$ ((, () ) 4$ $ $ , ( $ , , < ( ( ) ( $ $) $ ( & 4 ! (( ,4 $ , ( ) ( $( ( $ , 6 8%( ) ,) ( 4 ', A 1!3 ="( 7 ! +$ , $)( %( ( G> ! 5 ( ), ( ) () , $ ,( & &#' "" # $ $) 5 B$#(' $ ( , ) ,( ( ( $ ( , ( ( G> ! , ) ,), AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment ! 4 ) ;( $ ( ) ( 7."/#'' "! &"(2 ('43(%! ", 6 $ /', 3(@ 0! 7& ($ 7!3 4 ( ',+ A 1!3 ="( 7, 1 $ $!1!($!( ' &,!, B&#! '"( ($ =" 7!3 *A3$ ( $ ,> 032 /!3=C' %'! '413 , ( ="( 72@ 2"'' "# $!1!($!(%@( ', -?A ((42 2"'' "# $!1!($!(%@( ',+A ( $ , 032 /!3=C' %'! '413 ) , ( )( ',++A, & %2&=( ",* B&#! "# 7! $!%!'!$ ( ',?A ',A (',* A ',* A > 3(@ 0! 7&C' %'! '413, 24%2&=( ' ", ($ '"( ($ =" 7!3 "# 7! $!%!'!$ ( ',A !%7 ( 0 1 2 0 1 2 4 ( ',+++A *, ,) ( $ ( % # 5'( ( AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 1 , ) ) ( 6 8% 9 :; 6 8% - ) ( , 6 !8% , > :8 6 ! 8% " ) ) 6 "78% 7 ) 6 !-8% ! 1 + ) 6 !!--8% 2 ( ( ./ 6 78% 2 ( ( 6 !8% + '( ',+++A ,) ( )$ ( ( ', +A (Rs.4,88,844/- - Rs.1,35,000/-). /3"3'" 3 '()*+4(),, - "5 3& 66 63 $ & ' 3 )7 ' ),,4 8( 23. Coming to the assessment of compensation, the law is well settled that the compensation to be awarded for injuries suffered by victim in a motor vehicular accident should be just and equitable. Courts have consistently held that while money cannot erase the pain, suffering, or trauma but it is the only legal means to provide restitution and restore the victim to his previous position as far as possible for which ‘just compensation’ has to be assessed. It is also well settled that while it is impossible to fully compensate for the loss of limb, life, or quality of life, the compensation must be ‘Just’, meaning thereby, that it should be fair, reasonable, and equitable based on the evidence and not merely a ‘Windfall’ or a AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment ‘Pittance’. The core objective is to put the injured/victim in the same position he would have been if the accident had not taken place, to the extent money can do so. This approach ensures that the law provides a realistic recompense for the trauma endured, rather than just providing normal relief. 24. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR (Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and another, has held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined under the following heads:- Pecuniary damages (Special damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing expenditure, food and miscellaneous (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 under heads (i), (ii) (a) and (iv) It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 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. 25. As per version of claimant, he had suffered multiple injuries in the accident and has become permanently disabled. Tribunal on appreciation of the evidence awarded him a total compensation of Rs.1,78,000/-, which in my opinion is grossly inadequate. 26. To prove the injuries, claimant has led in evidence his bed head ticket Mark A, which shows that he had suffered fracture of tibia and fibula and he was operated upon and interlocking nailing was done in December 2002. Thereafter, another surgery was performed and the implant was removed. As such, it is established that claimant had suffered grievous injuries and he was operated upon twice. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain component in such injuries is enormous and they take a considerable long time to heal and in view of the severity of injuries suffered by the claimant and surgical interventions, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of pain and sufferings. 7 + = 4 ) ( 6 8%( 5 5 F$ #(' ./#''1! ". / ()$( AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment $ ( ) ( ) ( ( , ' = ( $ $$ ((, ()) 4$ $ $ , ( $ , , < ( ( ) ( $ $)$ ( (( ,4 $ , ( 4 )( ) (', A, ! Since, claimant was 35 years of age on the date of accident, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, his monthly income comes out to Rs.4,900/- (Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400/-). 29. To prove the disability, claimant has examined PW6%HI $ ) G> J"8$ $) I ,( # ,'@ 6(3( @ #, $, , ) $ , %>( ( , $ $ ) G> J"8 ( ( 7;$ ) , 4 +( AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment , (4 4$ $ ) ,$)( )( ,$ ) $$ 4 (( 4 +( K (B $4 , ,$) ,$ )$ ( $)) , $( $)5 F$#(' .-/ 26- $< .4=3 /', 7! &<&'&"(2 (;!3 &"(2 ('43(%! "=1(@ 6&=& !$, # c claimant has suffered 70% permanent disability, the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.3,430/- (Rs.4,900/- × 70%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.41,160/- per annum (Rs.3,430/- × 12) and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), multiplier of 16 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.6,58,560/- (Rs.41,160/- × 16). & ( 4 ( , ( $ $ ) 4 ,) (',* A ', A D #"3 2"'' "# &(%"=! $43&(; 3! =!( , 31. During the period of treatment, he must have engaged an attendant, spent some amount on special diet and on transportation and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- under all these heads. +( 7;( $ ) , 4 5 , , , 4 , , ,)( AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment - ( +$ ) , (( )% %) , his life. He will not be able to lift weight and will limp while walking and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amenities of life i.e. discomfort, inconvenience, hardship and loss of expectancy of life. ,) ( $ ( % 0, ", !$ "# "=1!(' &"( ="4( , 6 8% 2 ( , ( 6 8% + , 6 8% - 2 ( 7; ( $ ) 6 "!"8% 2( 6 8% " + '( ',?-A3"4($!$ "## " ',?A - + ( ( ', -A ',? ', *?+A /3"3'" 3 '( )*+* (),, - 3&" 3& 66 63$&' 3 )9 ' ),,4 8( 35. This claim petition has been instituted for compensation on account of damage in the accident in question. To prove the damage, claimant has examined PW5 Parveen Kumar, who deposed that he is the authorized dealer of Taif Tractors, Mandi Dabwali and he is also running a AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment workshop for the repair of tractors. Tractor No.HR-24-D-2921 was repaired at his workshop and bills Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C were issued by him regarding repairs effected on the said tractor. Bill Ex.PW5/A also includes the cost of some spare parts supplied to the consumer in respect of the above-said tractor. He further stated that he has brought the counterfoils of the above-said bills before the Tribunal. During cross-examination, he admitted that he maintains a job card in respect of the repairs done at the workshop but he has not brought the job card. He even failed to tell the exact date of bringing the tractor at the workshop. He stated that he had not issued any quotation regarding the repair required for the tractor. He had supplied the spare parts mentioned in the bills on the requirement of mechanic of the workshop. He admitted that the bills do not bear the name of any mechanic. During further cross-examination, he admitted that the bill book produced by him, out of which bills Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/C have been issued, was the only bill book maintained by him relating to repairs/sale of spare parts and he had not maintained any other bill book. 36. In this manner, as per his testimony, spare parts worth Rs.93,495/- were sold and a sum of Rs.5,150/- was charged as labour charges and oils worth Rs.3,500/- were changed and the total expenses incurred on the repair of the tractor came out to Rs.1,02,145/-. However, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,473/- only as compensation while relying upon the report of RW1 O.P. Madan, Surveyor, who was examined by the respondents. The Tribunal observed that no evidence has been led by the claimant to establish that the spare parts sold by way of bills Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/C were infact utilized in the repair as no AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment " mechanic has been examined to prove this fact and the reasoning given by the Tribunal while discarding the bills Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/C is well reasoned. However, the report of the Surveyor examined by the Insurance Company should not have been made the only basis to come to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.40,473/- only was required for the repair of the said tractor. The Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company and as such, he will toe the line of the Insurance Company and some amount of guesswork thus has to be applied while assessing the compensation in respect of the damage caused to the tractor and therefore, it is held that claimant must have spent at least Rs.50,000/- on the repair of the tractor. In addition to this, the tractor remained unused for about more than two months for which claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- and in all, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.55,000/- for the loss suffered by him. 37. The enhanced compensation thus comes out to Rs.14,527/- (Rs.55,000/- - Rs.40,473/-). 38. As a result of aforesaid discussion, all the aforesaid three appeals are partly accepted with costs. 39. In , appellant-Kunti Devi and Others are held entitled to a sum of ', +A (Rounded off to Rs.3,54,000/-) as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally. Out of the enhanced compensation, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each be paid to claimants No.2 and 3 and remaining amount be paid to wife (claimant No.1) along with proportionate AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment 7 interest. 40. In , appellant-Amarjit Singh is held entitled to a sum of Rs.5,46,000/- as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally. 41. In , appellant-Varinder Kumar is held entitled to a sum of ',* ?A "4($!$ "## " '* A as enhanced compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization payable by respondents jointly and severally. - 6, ) ( ) ,( & '( ) ( $) 5 $ #( ' J .'/ - I < H & '( ) 0 L & " & '( )() '.9/ ,( - ) $ -- ,( ./ ) 0/ 0 *+,+,- =($!!1 J 4 ,8 M8 J 6 $ M8 AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.08.21 14:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment