FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.07.2026 BRIJ LAL ....Appellant Versus HARBHAJAN SINGH ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR Present : Mr. BPS Virk, Advocate for the appellant. Notice to respondents No.1 to 3 dispensed with. Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.5-Insurance Company. YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral) 1. A perusal of the Award shows that driver, owners and Insurance Company have been held liable to pay compensation. A perusal of the Award further shows that respondent No.4-Baldev Singh was exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant. The Insurance Company is already represented by its counsel and, therefore, there is no necessity to issue notice to respondents No.1 to 3, and issuance of notice to respondents No.1 to 3 is dispensed with. 2. This appeal has been instituted by claimant against the Award dated 15.11.2000 passed by MACT, Patiala (for short “Tribunal”) for enhancement of AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 2- compensation awarded in MACT Case No.91T/95/11.6.1998 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 vide which a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimant/appellant alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 15.09.1994 due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving Metador bearing No.DL-3C-D-7291 (for short ‘offending vehicle’), owned by respondents No.2 and 3, which was insured with respondent No.5. 3. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether Brij Lal claimant was injured in a motor vehicular accident on Sept. 15, 1994 while he was travelling in Metador No.DL-3C-D-7291 owned by Satnam Singh and Inder Singh respondent No.4? OPA. 2. To what amount of compensation is the claimant entitled to? OPA. 3. Whether the claim application is barred by time? OPR. 4. Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this application?OPR. 5. Whether respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident?OPR-1. 6. Relief.” 4. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case. 5. After hearing the parties and going through the material on the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization, payable by respondents, except respondent No.4-Baldev Singh. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 3- 6. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred. The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard. 7. The only issue required to be determined in the present appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle and respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 have been held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly finding on issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly inadequate. The claimant had suffered 60% permanent disability and he has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- for pain and sufferings, medical expenses, special diet, conveyance charges and loss of income. Learned counsel further argued that on account of permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant will suffer ‘loss of income’ in future as well and adequate compensation has also not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be modified and appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC 121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 4- Another and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for Insurance Company argued that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for. 10. 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 ‘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. 11. 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) AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 5- (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 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. 12. As per version of claimant Brij Lal, he had suffered multiple injuries in the accident including fractures and had spent huge amount on his treatment. Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence on file, as held in para No.32 of the Award, awarded him a total compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- under the following heads:- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 6- 1. Pain & suffering Rs.20,000/- 2. Medical expenses Rs.80,000/- 3. Special diet Rs.5,000/- 4. Conveyance charges Rs.5,000/- 5. Loss of income Rs.20,000/- 6. Total Rs.1,30,000/- 13. To prove the injuries, claimant has examined PW5-Dr. Anil Mittal who deposed that claimant had suffered severe head injury with fracture anterior cranial fossa and fracture middle cranial fossa with fracture zygomatic bone both sides with fracture nazal bones with compound Grade-II fracture, discal third femur with chronic osteomyelitis with fracture both bones compound grade-II, mid third with intertrochanteric fracture left hip with fracture calcaneum left side. He was operated upon for left tibia on 24.9.1994, incision and drainage on 15.10.1994, 8.11.1994 and 7.12.1994. He was operated for plaster application on 11.10.1994. He was again admitted in the hospital on 9.1.1995 and debridement and requestrectomy left femur was done on 11.1.1995, hip spica on 21.1.1995 and he was discharged from the hospital on 26.1.1995. He was again admitted in the hospital on 18.03.1995 and sequestrectomy was done on 22.03.1995, hip spica on 1.4.1995 and he was discharged on 3.4.1995. He was again admitted in the hospital on 6.6.1995 and operated for fixator application left side with bone grafting on 8.6.1995. Incision and drainage with change of wire was done on 3.7.1995 and he was discharged on 13.7.1995 and thereafter, he kept on visiting the hospital for follow up treatment. As such, the claimant remained under treatment for a long duration of more than 10 months. Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of pain and sufferings, which is grossly inadequate. Taking into consideration the pain component involved in such injuries, duration AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 7- of treatment and severity of injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation on account of pain and sufferings. 14. Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- for the expenses incurred on treatment as per bills produced by the claimant and no interference in the same is called for. 15. A sum of Rs.5,000/- has been awarded for special diet, which too is meagre. Claimant must have remained under treatment for atleast one year and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.12,000/- for expenses incurred on special diet. During this period, he must have engaged an attendant but no amount has been given under this head and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- for engaging an attendant. Likewise, conveyance charges have been awarded to the tune of Rs.5,000/- only which are enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, as claimant had been visiting the hospital from time to time. 16. To prove his income, claimant has led in evidence his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 1994-95 i.e. financial year 1993-94 as Mark B/15. The return was filed on 28.07.1994 and as per this return, the total income of the claimant who was running commission agent business known as M/s Zimidara Trading Company was Rs.44,060/-. The receipts of LIC Mark B/18 and Mark B/19 have also been placed on file, which show that claimant had obtained LIC polices in his name and had been paying annual premium of around Rs.10,000/-. However, the income of Rs.44,060/- shown as income from business cannot be taken in its entirety towards his income. The subsequent return for the Assessment Year 1997-98 Mark B/28 shows that his salary income was Rs.18,000/- from the said firm. Even in his return for the Assessment Year 1993-1994 Mark B/22, total AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 8- income is shown as Rs.40,000/- and the computation annexed with it Mark B/22 shows his salary income to be Rs.18,000/- and interest income to be Rs.22,000/-, which shows that the claimant was earning Rs.18,000/- per year as salary from the said firm. Some more amount can be added to his monthly income on account of his managerial skills being rendered to this commission agent business and accordingly, his annual income is taken as Rs.24,000/-, which comes to Rs.2,000/- per month. The claimant remained under treatment for about one year and during this period, he would not have been able to do any work and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.24,000/- on account of loss of income. 17. In order to prove the disability suffered by him, claimant has led in evidence the disability certificate Ex. P2 issued by Civil Surgeon, Patiala, which shows that he had suffered 60% permanent disability on account of non union of left femur with one and a half inch shortening and stiff knee, which will certainly diminish his earning capability. The compensation under the head ‘loss of income’ thus has to be assessed keeping in view the percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited. 18. As discussed above, the income of claimant has been assessed as Rs.2,000/- per month. As mentioned in the claim petition, the claimant was 30 years of age on the date of accident. Even while deposing in the Court on 15.10.1999, he stated that he was 35 years of age, which shows that he was about 30 years old at the time of the accident, which took place in the year 1994. The Medico-Legal Report Ex. PW1/C also reflects the age of the claimant as 30 years. AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 9- Accordingly, the age of the claimant is taken as 30 years and as such, 40% amount has to be added to his monthly income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma’s case (supra) and Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and after adding the same, his monthly income comes out to Rs.2,800/- per month. 19. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1,680/- (Rs.2,800 × 60%) and annual loss of income will come out to Rs.20,160/- per annum (Rs.1,680 × 12) and in view of law laid down in Pranay Sethi’s case (supra) and Sarla Verma’s case (supra), and multiplier of 17 has to be applied which takes the compensation to Rs.3,42,720/- (Rs.20,160 × 17) on account of ‘loss of income’ due to permanent disability. Learned Tribunal while assessing compensation has not awarded any amount under the head loss of income due to permanent disability despite the fact that claimant has led ample evidence on the file to prove that he had suffered 60% permanent disability and no reasons have been assigned while not granting the same. 20. The claimant has suffered permanent disability and has become 60% disabled on account of nonunion of left femur with one and a half inch shortening and stiff knee, and it will impact his activities throughout his life and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of loss of amenities. 21. Resultantly, the compensation to be paid to claimant is assessed as under:- 1. Heads 2. Pain and sufferings Rs.40,000/- AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 10- 3. Medical expenses Rs.80,000/- 4. Special diet Rs.12,000/- 5. Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- 6. Conveyance charges Rs.10,000/- 7. Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.3,42,720/- 8. Loss of amenities Rs.20,000/- 9. Loss of income during treatment Rs.24,000/- 10. Total Rs.5,43,720/- (rounded off to Rs.5,44,000/-) 22. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.4,14,000/- (Rs.5,44,000/- − Rs.1,30,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by Tribunal along with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition i.e. 11.06.1998, till realization. 23. It is pertinent to mention that Insurance Company had also instituted FAO-1256-2001 titled National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Brij Lal and Others and FAO-1255-2001 titled National Insurance Company Ltd Vs. Karnail Singh and Others and vide order dated 22.11.2010, the matter was remanded to MACT, Patiala on the limited question of fixing the liability i.e. whether the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence or not and whether the recovery rights should be given to the Insurance Company or not. After remand, learned MACT, Patiala vide order dated 27.08.2012 has held that Insurance Company has failed to establish that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and said finding has been returned against the Insurance Company. Accordingly, respondents No.1 to 3 and 5 shall be liable to pay compensation, jointly and severally. 24. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the award to AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment FAO-2045-2001 (O&M) - 11- the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020 titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall comply with the directions as issued under Clause (F) of the said judgment. 25. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR) 28.07.2026 JUDGE amandeep Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No Whether Reportable. : Yes/No AMANDEEP GOSAIN 2026.07.29 19:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment