IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 114 CM-8372-CII-2026; CM-8373-CII-2026; CM-8374-CII-2026 in/and FAO-2288-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 23.04.2026 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. …..Appellant Vs. Rashid Husan and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. R.D. Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) CM-8372-CII-2026: This is an applicaon under Secon 5 of the Limitaon Act to condone the delay of 30 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of Ms. Vasudha Sharma, delay of 30 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. CM-8373-CII-2026: This is an applicaon under Secon 151 of the CPC to condone the delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons menoned in the applicaon duly supported by affidavit of Ms. Vasudha Sharma, delay of 24 days in re-filing the appeal is hereby condoned. Applicaon stands disposed of accordingly. Main case.: The present appeal has been preferred by the insurer of the offending vehicle assailing the award dated 13.10.2025, read with subsequent order dated 31.10.2025, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby compensaon to the tune of ₹27,09,200/- has been awarded in favour of the injured-claimant, Rashid Husan (respondent NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-8372-CII-2026; CM-8373-CII-2026; CM-8374-CII-2026 in/and FAO-2288-2026 (O&M) No.1 herein). 2. The sole contenon raised by learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that although the claimant has suffered 100% permanent physical disability, yet considering his young age of 24 years, such disability ought not to have been treated as 100% funconal disability. It is argued that the Tribunal erred in presuming complete loss of earning capacity and consequently awarding compensaon under the head of future loss of income on that basis. 3. This Court has considered the aforesaid submission and perused the material available on record, including the findings returned by the learned Tribunal. 4. The factum of accident dated 08.02.2023, caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle insured with the appellant, stands duly established and is not in dispute. It has further come on record that as a result of the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries leading to fracture at D11 level, culminang in paraplegia accompanied by loss of bladder and bowel control. The medical evidence, as appreciated by the Tribunal, clearly establishes that the claimant has been rendered permanently incapacitated, with no effecve control over his lower limbs and essenal bodily funcons. 5. The disncon between physical disability and funconal disability is well recognized in law. While physical disability is assessed in medical terms, funconal disability pertains to the impact of such disability on the earning capacity of the injured. In appropriate cases, even a lesser percentage of physical disability may result in higher funconal disability, depending upon the nature of work and extent of impairment. Conversely, where the injury results in complete loss of bodily funcon necessary for any gainful employment, physical disability may jusfiably be treated as equivalent to funconal disability. 6. In the present case, the claimant has been rendered paraplegic. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, based on medical Page No. 2 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CM-8372-CII-2026; CM-8373-CII-2026; CM-8374-CII-2026 in/and FAO-2288-2026 (O&M) evidence, indicate that he is unable to sit or walk independently and is incapable of performing normal bodily movements. Such a condion, by its very nature, severely restricts, if not altogether exnguishes, the possibility of engaging in any meaningful gainful employment, parcularly in the absence of any evidence suggesng specialized skills or alternave vocaonal capacity. 7. The contenon of the appellant that the claimant, being young, could sll earn his livelihood is wholly speculave and unsupported by any material on record. Age, by itself, cannot migate the crippling effect of a permanent and total disability of the nature suffered by the claimant. Rather, in cases of young vicms, the impact of such disability is more severe as it deprives them of their enre producve life. 8. The learned Tribunal has, therefore, rightly treated the 100% physical disability as 100% funconal disability and assessed the loss of future earnings accordingly. The approach adopted is consistent with seDled principles governing assessment of compensaon in motor accident claims and does not suffer from any legal infirmity, perversity, or mis- appreciaon of evidence. 9. No other argument has been raised. 10. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. 11. All pending miscellaneous applicaon(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 23, 2026 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 3 of 3 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.24 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document