(Pronouncement)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

(1)

Mehar Dass

Krishan Singh

(2)

Khushi Ram

Krishan Singh and

1 The date when the

2 The date when the judgment is pronounced

3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on

the website

4 Whether only operative part of the judgment

is pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced

5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full

judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM:

Argued By

(Pronouncement)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO No.

Mehar Dass

Versus

Krishan Singh and others

AND

FAO No.

Khushi Ram

Versus

Krishan Singh and others

The date when the judgment was reserved

The date when the judgment is pronounced

The date when the judgment is uploaded on

the website

Whether only operative part of the judgment

is pronounced or whether the full judgment is

pronounced

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full

judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Argued By:- Mr. R.K. Dhiman, Advocate

for the appellant (in FAO-4440

Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate and

Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocate

for the appellant (in FAO-173

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate

for respondent No. 2 (in FAO

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate

for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (in both cases).

****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M)

...Appellant

...Respondents

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)

...Appellant

...Respondents

judgment was reserved 24.04.2026

The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.07.2026

The date when the judgment is uploaded on 02.07.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment

is pronounced or whether the full judgment is

Full

The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

an, Advocate

4440-2008)

Mr. Ritender Rathee, Advocate and

Ms. Mamta Saini, Advocate

173-2009)

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate

respondent No. 2 (in FAO-4440-2008)

adeep Kumar, Advocate for

Insurance Company (in both cases).

Insurance Company (in both cases).

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -2-

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By this common judgment, two appeals bearing FAO

No. 4440 of 2008 (lead case); and FAO No. 173 of 2009 arising

out of award dated 06.09.2008 passed by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar (for short, “the

Tribunal”), in MACT Case No. 69 of 15.04.2006 are being

decided together.

[2] The present appeal(s) have been preferred by the

appellant(s)/claimant(s) against the Award dated 06.09.2008

passed by the learned Tribunal, whereby the claim petitions filed

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 were

dismissed on the ground that the appellant(s) failed to prove that

the accident in question occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of tractor-trolley bearing registration No. HR-02N-3946.

BRIEF FACTS

[3] The case set up by the claimants before the Tribunal

was that on 05.04.2006, appellants-Khushi Ram and Mehar

Dass were travelling on motorcycle No. HR-02N-9153 from

village Topra Khurd towards Yamuna Nagar. At about

10:00/10:30 A.M., when they reached near Haryana Dharam

Kanta on Radaur Road, Yamuna Nagar, tractor-trolley bearing

registration No. HR-02N-3946, driven by respondent No.1-

Krishan Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from the

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -3-

opposite direction and collided with the motorcycle, resulting in

serious injuries to both the claimants.

[4] The appellant(s) suffered multiple grievous injuries

and remained admitted in Mahajan Hospital, Yamuna Nagar.

Compensation was accordingly claimed. The responden ts

contested the claim petitions and pleaded that the accident

occurred due to negligence of Khushi Ram, who was allegedly

driving the motorcycle at a high speed and on the wrong side of

the road. The learned Tribunal, while deciding Issue No.1,

concluded that negligence of the tractor driver was not

established and consequently dismissed both claim petitions.

Aggrieved thereof, the appellant(s)/claimant(s) preferred the

present appeal(s).

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR

THE APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT(S)

[5] Learned counsel for the appellant(s) contended that

the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach and ignored the

settled principle that proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are

summary in nature and negligence is required to be established

on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not

beyond reasonable doubt. It was further argued that registration

of FIR, filing of challan, framing of charge against respondent

No.1 and the consistent testimony of both injured eye-witnesses

constituted sufficient evidence to hold the tractor driver negligent.

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -4-

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL

FOR RESPONDENT No.2/OWNER OF THE OFFENDING

VEHICLE.

[6] Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

No.2-owner supported the award passed by the learned Tribunal

and submitted that the appellants failed to discharge the burden

of proving rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent

No.1. It was argued that the site plan prepared during

investigation clearly indicated that the point of impact was on the

correct side of the tractor, thereby corroborating the defence

version that the motorcycle came to the wrong side of the road.

Learned counsel further contended that the testimony of the

claimants, being interested witnesses, was rightly disbelieved by

the Tribunal, particularly in view of the material improvements

made in their version and the non-examination of th e

independent witness namely Chaman Lal. It was, thus, prayed

that the findings recorded by the Tribunal were based upon

proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant any

interference in appeal.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL

FOR RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY

[7] Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance

Company argued on the same grounds as raised by respondent

No. 2 and further submitted that the appellants failed to prove

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by leading

cogent and reliable evidence. It was contended that mere

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -5-

registration of an FIR, filing of a challan or framing of charge

against the driver cannot, by itself, establish negligence in a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Learned counsel maintained that the findings recorded by the

learned Tribunal were based on proper appreciation of the

evidence available on record and, therefore, the impugned

award does not warrant any interference by this Court.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

[8] I have heard learned counsel for the parti es and

perused the paper-book of the case.

QUESTION OF NEGLIGENCE

[9] At the outset, it requires to be noticed that both appellants

were injured in the same occurrence. Khushi Ram appeared as

PW-8 and Mehar Dass appeared as PW-9. Both categorically

deposed regarding involvement of tractor-trolley No. HR-02N-

3946 and attributed negligence to respondent No.1. Their

presence at the spot cannot be doubted since both suffered

injuries in the occurrence itself. The learned Tribunal discarded

their testimony primarily on the ground that the FIR did not

specifically mention that the tractor came on the wrong side of

the road and that an independent witness namely Chaman Lal

was not examined. In the considered opinion of this Court, the

approach adopted by the Tribunal is legally unsustainable.

[9.1] The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bimla Devi and others

versus Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others,

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -6-

2009 (13) SCC 530,

held that strict rules of evidence are not

applicable in claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act and

negligence is to be determined on the basis of preponderance of

probabilities. It was further held that where criminal proceedings

have been initiated against the driver of the offending vehicle,

the same constitutes a relevant circumstance while determining

negligence. Similarly, in Mangla Ram versus Oriental

Insurance Company Limited, 2018 (5) SCC 656, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reiterated that the standard of proof in motor

accident claim cases is much lighter than that required in

criminal proceedings and a holistic view of the evidence has to

be adopted.

[9.2] In the present case, it stands established from the

record that the occurrence was duly reported to the police and

FIR No.126 dated 07.04.2006 came to be registered with respect

to the accident in question, wherein the offending tractor-trolley

bearing registration No. HR-02N-3946 was specifical ly

mentioned. The investigation conducted by the police culminated

in the filing of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against

respondent No.1, and the competent criminal Court proceeded to

frame charges against him under Sections 279, 337 and 338

IPC. Furthermore, both the injured claimants entered the

witness-box and consistently deposed regarding the manner of

the accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle. These

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -7-

circumstances, when considered cumulatively, lend substantial

support to the case set up by the claimants regarding the

occurrence and involvement of respondent No.1 in the accident.

Merely because the FIR did not expressly record that the tractor

came to the wrong side of the road cannot lead to an inference

that the accident did not occur due to negligence of respondent

No.1. FIR is not expected to contain every minute detail of the

occurrence.

[9.3] The learned Tribunal also placed substantial reliance

upon the site plan. However, even assuming that the point of

impact was shown on the left side of the road while proceeding

from Yamuna Nagar towards Radaur, the same by itself was not

sufficient to completely discredit the testimony of two injured eye-

witnesses, particularly when the site plan was prepared during

police investigation and the person on whose demarcation it was

allegedly prepared was never examined by the respondents,

thereby denial of opportunity to the appellant(s) to cross-examine

him. It is equally significant that respondent No.1 himself

admitted the occurrence and the involvement of his tractor. Thus,

the controversy was confined only to the manner of accident.

[9.4] Further, proceedings before the Claims Tribunal are

welfare-oriented proceedings intended to grant just

compensation to victims of road accidents. The Tribunal was

required to appreciate the evidence in a liberal manner

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -8-

consistent with the object of the legislation. The cumulative effect

of the testimony of the injured witnesses, registration of FIR,

police investigation, filing of challan and framing of charge

against respondent No.1 clearly establishes, on the touchstone

of preponderance of probabilities, that the accident occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trolley bearing registration

No. HR-02N-3946 by respondent No.1. Consequently, t he

finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.1 cannot be

sustained and is hereby set aside.

[9.5] Since the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim

petitions, no compensation was assessed. Therefore, this Court

proceeds to determine just and fair compensation payable to the

appellant(s).

[10] Before determining the quantum of compensation, it

is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in

similar cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court. In “Raj Kumar vs.

Ajay Kumar and Ors.” reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Court

laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded

for personal injuries.

“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.

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -9-

(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, the compensation

will 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”.

ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” (MEHAR

DASS)

[11] A perusal of the record reveals that the

appellant/claimant was 28 years of age at the time of accident

and stated to be earning Rs. 5,000/- per month as he was

working as a junk dealer. However, no documentary evidence

was produced on record. Even otherwise, it stands duly proved

that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the accident, on

account of which he remained hospitalized and incapacitated for

a considerable period, rendering him unable to attend his

avocation. In such circumstances, the absence of documentary

proof could not have been a ground to deny just compensation,

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -10-

particularly when the nature of injuries and period of treatment

clearly establish loss of earning during the period of

rehabilitation. In this situation observations made by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in “Kubra Bibi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”,

reported as 2023 (3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, to the

effect that in the absence of definite proof of income, the social

status of the deceased is to be kept in perspective where such

persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional

income is required to be taken into consideration to help the

cause of the appellant. Relevant para from this judgment is

reproduced hereunder:-

“7. In a matter of the present nature where the

compensation is sought and even in absence of definite

proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is

to be kept in perspective where such persons are

employed in unorganized sector and the notional income

in any event is required to be taken into consideration.

The fact that the deceased had three dependents to be

cared for and had claimed that he was working as a

mechanic, the amount payable to an unskilled labour,

cannot be the basis and in that circumstance when he

was a skilled person, the daily income at Rs. 200 per day

in any event could have been taken even if the income

from jeep transport business was discarded for want of

documents. More so in a circumstance, where the MACT

had referred to the evidence available on record and

then arrived at its conclusion, the re-appreciation of the

evidence by the High Court is without being sensitive to

nature of lis before it.”

[11.1] Furthermore, the nature of proceedings in Motor

Accident Claims, being summary in nature, evidence in stricto

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -11-

sensu is not required. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of

“Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav & Ors.”, reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in the

absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can

be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix

the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to

be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is

reproduced hereunder:-

“…….In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage

notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an

absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of

documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is

required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for

assessing the income of deceased should not be totally detached

from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce

documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal,

same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage

while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral

evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late

Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000/- per month……”

[11.2] In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while

keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional

income of the appellant/claimant is assessed @ Rs. 4,200/- per

month (Rs. 140 per day). Now, as per the testimony of PW1 Dr.

R.K Mahajan, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Mahajan Hospital, Yamuna

Nagar, the appellant/claimant remained in hospital from

05.04.2006 to 18.04.2006 i.e. 13 days and as such loss of

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -12-

income suffered by him during the said period is assessed as

Rs. 1,820/- (Rs. 140 x 13). Further, evidently the motor vehicular

accident in the present case took place on 05.04.2006 and the

appellant/claimant must have been bed-ridden for 5 months due

to compound fracture of left mandible, fracture of pelvis, after the

accident. Thus, it would be safe to assume that the appellant

suffered loss of income for 5 months due to reduced working

capacity. Therefore, after considering facts and circumstances of

the present case, loss of income for the said period is

conservatively assessed @ Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 140 x 150).

Further, with regard to the claim for compensation under the

head of ‘loss of future income’, in the absence of any cogent

evidence establishing permanent disability suffered by the

appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the

said head.

ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES /

HOSPITALIZATION”

[12] In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered

compound fracture of left mandible and pelvis. Even though the

appellant could only produce few medical bills but keeping in

mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular

accident and the follow-up treatment besides need of medicines

during rehabilitation period, the compensation under this head

needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds force from the

fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident,

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -13-

a person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all

the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation

under this head is assessed as Rs. 1,00,000/-.

ASSESSMENT ON THE ASPECT OF “PAIN AND

SUFFERING”

[13] For assessing just compensation under the head of

pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R.

Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that

the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be

reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization,

and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant.

Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries

suffered, the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the life-long nature of

the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement

of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the

claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/-

under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that the

prayer of the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation

was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just,

fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”

[13.1] In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar’s case (supra), and

having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly

proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -14-

compound fracture of left mandible and pelvis. Thus, this Court

is of the opinion that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded

under the head of pain and sufferings.

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’

[14] In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the

appellant/claimant, particularly the compound fracture of left

mandible and pelvis followed by prolonged post-operative care, it

can reasonably be inferred that he remained confined to bed for

a period of about 5 months and would have definitely gone for

his post-operative care. Therefore, compensation granted under

these heads is reassessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/.

CONCLUSION

[15] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant-Mehar Dass shall be entitled for the grant of

compensation in the following manner:-

S.No.

Nature Amount (in Rs.)

1. Loss of Income (Rs. 1,820 + Rs. 21,000) 22,820/-

2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization 1,00,000/-

3. Compensation under other pecuniary head 1,00,000 /-

4. Compensation under pain and sufferings 2,00,000/ -

Total Compensation 4,22,820/-

ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME” (KHUSHI

RAM)

[16] A perusal of the record reveals that the

appellant/claimant was 25 years of age at the time of accident

and stated to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month as he was

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -15-

running a barber shop under the name and style of “Khushi Hair

Dresser”. However, no documentary evidence was produced on

record. Even otherwise, it stands duly proved that the appellant

sustained grievous injuries in the accident, on account of which

he remained hospitalized and incapacitated for a considerable

period, rendering him unable to attend his avocation. In such

circumstances, the absence of documentary proof could not

have been a ground to deny just compensation, particularly

when the nature of injuries and period of treatment clearly

establish loss of earning during the period of rehabilitation. In this

situation observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

“Kubra Bibi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.”,

reported as

2023 (3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, to the effect that in

the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the

deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are

employed in unorganized sector and the notional income is

required to be taken into consideration to help the cause of the

appellant.

[16.1] In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while

keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional

income of the appellant/claimant is assessed @ Rs. 6,000/- per

month (Rs. 200 per day). Now, as per the testimony of PW1 Dr.

R.K Mahajan, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Mahajan Hospital, Yamuna

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -16-

Nagar, the appellant/claimant remained in hospital from

05.04.2006 to 18.04.2006 i.e. 13 days and as such loss of

income suffered by him during the said period is assessed as

Rs. 2,600/- (Rs. 200 x 13). Further, evidently the motor vehicular

accident in the present case took place on 05.04.2006 and the

appellant/claimant must have been bed-ridden for 6 months due

to fracture of left leg, femur and knee, fracture right clavicle and

lacerated wound on left eye, after the accident. Thus, it would be

safe to assume that the appellant suffered loss of income for 6

months due to reduced working capacity. Therefore, after

considering facts and circumstances of the present case, loss of

income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ Rs.

36,000/- (Rs. 200 x 180). Furthermore, though, the

appellant/claimant has suffered 20% disability which has been

established by the disability certificate (Ex.P87) yet it being a

case of fracture of left leg, femur and knee, fracture right clavicle

and lacerated wound on left eye, it would be just and fair if the

future loss of income/functional disability is assessed @ 15%,

keeping in view the nature of work being performed by the

appellant, the resultant severe restriction on his mobility and

earning capacity, and the settled principle that functional

disability may differ from the medical disability depending upon

the avocation of the injured. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, in the case of “Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar”

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -17-

reported as 2020 INSC 553 held that in cases where a claimant

suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation

may be awarded not only for the future loss of income but also

towards future prospects.

[16.2] A perusal of record shows that the age of

appellant/claimant at the time of accident was 25 years. The

computation of future prospects is to be done as per the law laid

down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

“National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi” reported as

(2017) 16 SCC 680 para-59.3, which records the conclusion in

this regard, reads as under:-

“59.3 While determining 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 read as

actual salary less tax.”

[16.3] In view of the above discussion, the

appellant/claimant in addition to the loss of future earnings, shall

also be entitled to compensation for loss of future prospects @

40%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after

adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 8,400/- (6,000 + 2,400)

per month for the purpose of calculation of compensation.

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -18-

Accordingly, this Court finds that the compensation payable for

the functional disability to the extent of 15% is assessed @ Rs.

2,72,160/- (8,400 x 12 x 18 x 15/100).

ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICAL EXPENSES /

HOSPITALIZATION”

[17] In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered

disability to the extent of 20% which has been established by the

disability certificate (Ex.P87). The appellant/claimant has also

stated that he had spent a sum of Rs. 2 lakh approximately on

treatment. Even though the appellant could only produce few

medical bills but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the

time of motor vehicular accident and the follow-up treatment

besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The

aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and

mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be

presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for

claim/reimbursement purposes, though, total bills proved are for

Rs.62,572/- yet in the humble opinion of this Court ,

compensation under this head is assessed as Rs. 1,50,000/-.

ASSESSMENT ON THE ASPECT OF “PAIN AND

SUFFERING”

[18] For assessing just compensation under the head of

pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R.

Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -19-

the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be

reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization,

and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant.

Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

“15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the

injuries suffered, the ‘pain and suffering’ caused, and the

life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-

appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced

above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be

justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/- under the

head ‘pain and suffering’, fully conscious of the fact that

the prayer of the claimant-appellant for enhancement of

compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find

the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the

amount so awarded.”

[18.1] In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar’s case (supra), and

having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly

proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous

injuries, namely fracture of left leg, femur and knee, fracture right

clavicle and lacerated wound on left eye. More than that, as per

the disability certificate brought on record, it has been

established that the appellant/claimant was found to be having

20% permanent disability. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -20-

an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain

and sufferings.

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’

[19] Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 6 months

as he was suffering from fracture of left leg, femur and knee,

fracture right clavicle and lacerated wound on left eye, and would

have definitely gone for his post-operative care. However,

learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under

the head of special diet, conveyance charges and attendant

charges. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is

reassessed @ Rs. 2,00,000/.

CONCLUSION

[20] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant-Khushi Ram shall be entitled for the grant

of compensation in the following manner:-

S.No. Nature Amount (in Rs.)

1. Loss of Income (Rs. 2,600+ Rs. 36,000 +

Rs. 2,72,160)

3,10,760/-

2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization 1,50,000/-

3. Compensation under other pecuniary

head

2,00,000/-

4. Compensation under pain and sufferings 2,00,000/ -

Total Compensation 8,60,760/-

[21] In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in “Smt. Supe Dei and others vs. National

Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as (2009) (4)

SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as

FAO No. 4440 of 2008 (O&M) and  

FAO No. 173 of 2009 (O&M)            -21-

“Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and

another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, the appellant(s)/claimant(s)

are held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the amount of

compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of

institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said

amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be

payable thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of

period of three months from today.

[22] Accordingly, both the appeals filed at the instance

of claimant(s)/appellant(s), are allowed in the aforesaid terms

with the modification in the liability and quantum of compensation

as assessed hereinabove. The impugned award dated

06.09.2008 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified to the

extent indicated, and the claimant(s)/appellant(s) shall be entitled

to the amount of compensation along with interest in the manner

specified in the preceding paragraph. The liability to satisfy the

award shall be of respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

[23] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall

also stand(s) disposed off.

July 02, 2026 ( HARKESH MANUJA )

‘dk kamra’ JUDGE

Whether Speaking / Reasoned : Yes No

Whether Reportable : Yes No