IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 118 FAO-2084-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision.: 17.04.2026 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. …..Appellant Vs. Jagdev Singh and Others .….Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present appeal has been filed by the insurer of the offending vehicle assailing the award dated 15.01.2026 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, whereby compensa)on was awarded in favour of claimant Jagdev Singh (respondent No.1 herein) on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident. 2. The record reveals that the accident occurred on 28.01.2020 involving tralla bearing registra)on No. PB-03-BC-5602. The claimant sustained mul)ple injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle. He therea1er ins)tuted a pe))on under Sec)on 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensa)on from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. Upon apprecia)on of the evidence, the learned Tribunal held the driver of the tralla responsible for causing the accident due to rash and negligent driving and awarded a total compensa)on of ₹8,85,572/-, along with interest, payable jointly and severally by the respondents. 4. The compensa)on awarded by the Tribunal was under the following heads: NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2084-2026 (O&M) Head of Compensa<on Amount i. Medical expenses ₹20,572/- ii. Future medical expenses ₹10,000/- iii. Transporta)on charges ₹15,000/- iv. A<endant charges ₹10,000/- v. Special diet and nutri)on ₹15,000/- vi. Loss of future income ₹5,40,000/- vii.Pain and suffering ₹1,00,000/- viii. Loss of expecta)on of life ₹1,00,000/- ix. Loss of ameni)es ₹75,000/- 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer has confined the challenge to the quantum of compensa)on and contends that the amount awarded under the heads of loss of future income, pain and suffering, loss of expecta)on of life ,and loss of ameni)es is excessive and liable to be reduced. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and examined the record, this Court finds no merit in the submissions advanced. 7. It is borne out from the evidence that the claimant suffered mul)ple grievous injuries on his right leg, le1 arm and other parts of the body. He had to undergo surgical interven)on, and iron plates were inserted in his right arm as well as right leg. The nature of injuries itself demonstrates that the trauma suffered by the claimant was serious and not superficial. The treatment was prolonged and involved substan)al pain, restricted mobility and con)nuing discomfort. 8. Dr. Parbhsimran Singh, examined as CW-2, proved the disability cer)ficate showing permanent disability of 20%. The Tribunal correctly appreciated that in claims arising out of bodily injuries, mere percentage of physical disability is not the sole determina)ve factor. What is required to be assessed is the resultant impact of such disability upon the earning capacity of the injured, par)cularly with reference to his voca)on. Page No. 2 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2084-2026 (O&M) 9. The claimant was stated to be working as a labourer. A labourer’s occupa)on is predominantly manual and physically demanding. Any permanent impairment affec)ng limbs substan)ally diminishes employability, efficiency and earning poten)al. In such circumstances, the Tribunal was jus)fied in trea)ng the cer)fied physical disability as having a corresponding func)onal effect on the claimant’s capacity to earn. The approach adopted is in consonance with the se<led principle that func)onal disability must be assessed in rela)on to the avoca)on of the injured person and not merely by mechanical reference to the medical percentage. 10. The Tribunal assessed the claimant’s monthly income at ₹15,000/-, keeping in view minimum wages and surrounding circumstances. On that basis, the monthly loss of earning capacity was determined at ₹3,000/-, i.e. ₹36,000/- annually. Since the claimant was 40 years of age, mul)plier of 15 was applied, resul)ng in compensa)on of ₹5,40,000/- towards future loss of income. The methodology adopted is fair, ra)onal and consistent with the principles governing assessment of compensa)on in injury cases. 11. As regards compensa)on under the non-pecuniary heads, the law recognizes that damages are not confined to actual expenses alone. Compensa)on must also be granted for pain, suffering, trauma, loss of ameni)es and diminished enjoyment of life. These are real consequences of bodily injury though incapable of precise arithme)cal computa)on. The principles enunciated in R.D. Haangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (1995) 1 SCC 551 fully support such an approach. 12. In the present case, the claimant underwent surgery, had metallic implants inserted, remained under treatment for a considerable period and sustained permanent disability. Such injuries inevitably affect mobility, comfort, ability to work and ordinary enjoyment of life. Therefore, Page No. 3 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO-2084-2026 (O&M) the amounts awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of expecta)on of life and loss of ameni)es cannot be termed arbitrary or unconscionable so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdic)on. 13. It is trite that an appellate Court would not lightly interfere with the quantum of compensa)on unless the award is shown to be either grossly excessive or palpably inadequate, or founded upon misreading of evidence. No such infirmity has been demonstrated in the present case. 14. Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. The award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur, is affirmed. 15. All pending miscellaneous applica)ons, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE April 17, 2026 Nee)ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Page No. 4 of 4 Pages NEETIKA TUTEJA 2026.04.20 12:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document