FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M)

Reserved on : 27.11.2025

Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025

Uploaded on : 13.12.2025

Manish ......Appellant

Vs.

Azad and others

......Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:Mr. Mukesh Yadav, Advocate

for the appellant.

Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate,

for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

22.01.2025 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari

(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for enhancement of compensation, granted to the

appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.2,83,849/-, alongwith interest at the rate

of 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a

Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 14.09.2021.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined

to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed

narration of the facts of the case is not reproduced and is skipped herein for

the sake of brevity.

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -2-

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and

deserves to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be

allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be

enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance

Company, however, vehemently argue that the award has rightly been passed

and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal has

rightly been granted. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

6. Hon’ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of

compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of

Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases

343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for

short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which

means that compensation should, to the extent possible,

fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position

prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is

to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done

as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and

equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to

assess the damages objectively and exclude from

consideration any speculation or fancy, though some

conjecture with reference to the nature of disability and

its consequences, is inevitable. A person is not only to be

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -3-

compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss

which he suffered as a result of such injury. This means

that he is to be compensated for his inability to lead a full

life, his inability to enjoy those normal amenities which

he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, and his

inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could

have earned. (See C.K. Subramonia Iyer v. T.

Kunhikuttan Nair, AIR 1970 Supreme Court 376, R.D.

Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Ltd., 1995 (1) SCC

551 and Baker v. Willoughby, 1970 AC 467).

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.

(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, 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.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed

above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from

injuries), do not result in loss of earning capacity.

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -4-

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference

to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be

the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it

differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is

not the same as the percentage of permanent disability

(except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of

evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning

capacity is the same as percentage of permanent

disability).

(iii) The doctor who treated an injured-claimant or who

examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his

permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the

extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning

capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the

Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different

percentages of loss of earning capacity in different

persons, depending upon the nature of profession,

occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is

explained below with reference to the following

Illustration 'A' : The injured, a workman, was aged 30

years and earning Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of

accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent

disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was

60% and the consequential permanent disability to the

person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning

capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on

the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued

in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of

compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs.

36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum

(15% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 5400/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs.

91,800/-

Illustration 'B' : The injured was a driver aged 30 years,

earning Rs. 3000/- per month. His hand is amputated and

his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was

terminated from his job as he could no longer drive. His

chances of getting any other employment was bleak and

even if he got any job, the salary was likely to be a

pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -5-

future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of

compensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs.

36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum

(75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs.

4,59,000/-

Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final

year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he

was in coma for two months, his right hand was

amputated and vision was affected. The permanent

disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was

incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he

required the assistance of a servant throughout his life,

the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as

70%. The calculation of compensation will be as

follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would

have got if had been employed as an

Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum

(70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-

[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are

hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based

on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra

(supra)].

7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance

Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified

the law under Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988,

on the following aspects:-

(A)Deduction of personal and living expenses to determine

multiplicand;

(B)Selection of multiplier depending on age of deceased;

(C)Age of deceased on basis for applying multiplier;

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -6-

(D)Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss

of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses, with

escalation;

(E)Future prospects for all categories of persons and for

different ages: with permanent job; self-employed or fixed

salary.

The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“Therefore, we think it seemly to fix reasonable sums. It

seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional

heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and

funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000, Rs.40,000 and

Rs.15,000 respectively. The principle of revisiting the

said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit

should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think

that it would be condign that the amount that we have

quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in

every three years and the enhancement should be at the

rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to

hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect

of those heads.”

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Erudhaya Priya Vs.

State Express Tran. Corpn. Ltd. 2020 ACJ 2159, has held as under:-

“7. There are three aspects which are required to be

examined by us:

(a) the application of multiplier of '17' instead of '18';

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the

basis of age of the appellant as 23 years relying on the

judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v.

Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC). In para

46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench

effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as

mentioned in the table in the case of Sarla Verma (Smt)

and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) . In the age group of 15-25 years,

the multiplier has to be '18' along with factoring in the

extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned

counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus,

we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be

applied in the case of the appellant has to be '18' and not

'17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with

permanent disability of 31.1%

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -7-

In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has

claimed compensation on what is stated to be the settled

principle set out in Jagdish v. Mohan & Others, 2018

ACJ 1011 (SC) and Sandeep Khanuja v. Atul Dande &

Another, 2017 ACJ 979 (SC). We extract below the

principle set out in the Jagdish (supra) in para 8:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable the

settled principles need to be borne in mind. A

victim who suffers a permanent or temporary

disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to

the award of compensation. The award of

compensation must cover among others, the

following aspects:

(i)Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from

the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii)The inability of the victim to lead a normal

life together with its amenities;

(iv)Medical expenses including those that the

victim may be required to undertake in

future; and

(v)Loss of expectation of life."

[emphasis supplied]

The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized

in an earlier judgment, i.e. the Sandeep Khanuja case

(supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically

sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of

income as a result of death or permanent disability

suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we

examine the disability certificate, it shows the

admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various

number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to

January 2013. The nature of injuries had been set out as

under:

"Nature of injury:

(i)compound fracture shaft left humerus

(ii)fracture both bones left forearm

(iii)compound fracture both bones right forearm

(iv)fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand

(v)subtrochanteric fracture right femur

(vi)fracture shaft femur

(vii)fracture both bones left leg

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -8-

We have also perused the photographs annexed to

the petition showing the current physical state of the

appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the

respondent State Corporation that the same was not on

record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the

position even after treatment and the nature of injuries

itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in

para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while

applying the multiplier method, future prospects on

advancement in life and career are also to be taken into

consideration.

We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is

merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid

principles with regard to future prospects must also be

applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent

disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the

basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case

(supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the

age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary

in the present case.

(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate

claimed as 12%

In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has

watered down the interest rate during the course of

hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements

including in the Jagdish’s case (supra). On this aspect,

once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the

learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was

confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by

this Court.

CONCLUSION

8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled

principles, the calculation of compensation by the

appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would

have to be adopted as follows:

Heads Awarded

Loss of earning power

(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100

Rs. 9,81,978/-

Future prospects (50 per cent

addition)

Rs.4,90,989/-

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -9-

Medical expenses including

transport charges,

nourishment, etc.

Rs.18,46,864/-

Loss of matrimonial prospectsRs.5,00,000/-

Loss of comfort, loss of

amenities and mental agony

Rs.1,50,000/-

Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-

Total Rs.41,69,831/-

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the

compensation of Rs. 41,69,831/- as claimed along with simple

interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

application till the date of payment.

9. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the appellant was

a child aged merely 18 years old and was a student of Class 11

th

at the time

of the accident. Further perusal of the award reveals that the appellant

suffered 24% permanent disability as depicted from disability certificate

(Ex.P-44), which was proved on record by PW5-Dr. Ajay. The learned

Tribunal, however, fell in error in not applying multiplier method while

calculating the compensation and not assessed any notional income of the

appellant/claimant to determine just compensation as mandated by MV Act.

10. It is by now a well-settled and consistently reiterated principle

of law that the death or permanent disability of a minor child in a motor

vehicle accident cannot be equated with that of a non-earning individual for

the purposes of computing compensation. The reason is obvious: a child, by

virtue of tender age, is not engaged in gainful employment and, therefore,

any rigid categorisation as a “non-earner” would not only be artificial but

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -10-

would also defeat the very object of just compensation under the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988.

11. In such cases, the proper course for determination of

compensation under the head of “loss of income” is to adopt, at the very

least, the minimum wages notified for a skilled worker in the State

concerned at the relevant time. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in

categorical terms, laid down this principle in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand &

Ors. [(2020) 4 SCC 413] and Baby Sakshi Greola v. Manzoor Ahmad

Simon & Anr. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3692], wherein it was held that a

minor’s potential and future prospects cannot be curtailed by treating

him/her as a non-earner, and the yardstick of minimum wages of a skilled

worker is the just and reasonable benchmark.

12. Applying the aforesaid ratio to the present case, the monthly

notional income of the appellant/claimant is accordingly assessed at

Rs.12,000/-, being the minimum wages of a skilled worker as notified for

the relevant period in the State of Haryana.

13. A perusal of the impugned award further reveals that the learned

Tribunal has rightly assessed disability of the appellant/claimant to the

extent of 24% qua whole body, as duly certified in the disability certificate

(Ex. P-44).

14. A further perusal of the award shows that the amount granted

under the head of ‘Pain and Suffering’ is on lower side. Reference at this

stage can be made to the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in

the case of K.S. Muralidhar v. R. Subbulakshmi and another 2024 SCC

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -11-

Online SC 3385, has settled the law regarding grant of compensation under

the head of “Pain and Suffering”. The relevant portion of the

K.S.Muralidhar’s case 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.”

Therefore, in view of the above judgment and prolonged

hospitalization and nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant,

this Court, in the interest of justice, deems it appropriate to grant a

compensation of Rs.70,000/- under the head of ‘Pain and Suffering’.

15. A perusal of the award further reveals that the learned Tribunal

has awarded Rs.14,000/- for hospitalization and a meager amount of

Rs.48,000/- for permanent disability.

16.This Court is conscious of the fact that a compensation awarded for

permanent disability is distinct from loss of future income, therefore, the

learned Tribunal ought to have assessed the loss of future income to the

appellant/claimant by taking into account his monthly income and adding

suitable future prospect and applying multiplier as mandated by settled law.

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -12-

Reference at this stage can be made to recent judgment of Hon’ble the

Supreme Court rendered in Kavin Vs. P. Sreemani Devi & Ors., 2025

INSC 1028. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced as under:-

“13. The Claims Tribunal further granted an amount of

Rs.3 lacs towards permanent disability suffered by the

claimant. This was after taking into consideration the

100% disability suffered by the claimant. The High Court

however set aside the grant of compensation under this

head by observing that as compensation towards loss of

income had been granted, further amount of Rs. 3 lacs

towards permanent disability was not admissible. We do

not find any basis whatsoever for this approach of the

High Court. The grant of compensation for loss of future

income is a distinct head from the one under which

compensation is granted for permanent disability. In the

light of the fact that the claimant suffered 100%

permanent disability and was living in a vegetative state,

the High Court was not justified in setting aside the grant

of compensation under this head.  In our view,

considering the nature of disability suffered by the

claimant, he would be entitled to amount of Rs. 5 lacs

under this head.”

17. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned Tribunal

erred in not awarding any amount of compensation under the head of ‘loss of

marriage prospects’, despite the appellant/claimant being only 18 years old

at the time of the accident and having his entire life before him. The learned

Tribunal failed to consider the impact of his injury on his ability to marry,

find a life partner, and enjoy normal matrimonial prospects. Hon’ble the

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -13-

Supreme Court, in its decision in Rahul Ganpat Rao Sable Versus

National Insurance Company, 2023 (3) RCR (Civil) 574 squarely

addresses this omission and recognizes that such non-pecuniary loss arising

from permanent disability including loss of marriage prospects deserves just

compensation. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

“Loss of Marriage prospects:-

No compensation has been awarded under the above

head.Considering the nature of injuries duly approved

and certified, the appellant would be entitled to

compensation under loss of marriage prospects. Again,

relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of

Chaus Tausif Almiya (supra), we award afixed

compensation of Rs.3 lakhs under the said head.”

In view of the above, this Court in the interest of justice is

awarding Rs.2,00,000/- under the conventional head of ‘loss of marriage

prospects’.

18. Further perusal of the record shows that no compensation has

been awarded by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation,

attendant charges, special diet and future treatment. Therefore, the award

requires indulgence of this Court.

RELIEF

19. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

the above referred to judgments, the present appeal is allowed. The award

dated 22.01.2025 is modified accordingly. The appellant/claimant is entitled

to enhanced compensation as per the calculations made here-under:-

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -14-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1Monthly Income Rs.12,000/-

2Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.4,800/- (40% of Rs.12,000/-)

3Annual Income Rs.2,01,600/- {(12,000 + 4,800)

X 12)

4Loss of earning due to disability (24%)Rs.48,384/- (24% of Rs.2,01,600)

5Multiplier 18

6Loss of future earning per annumRs.8,70,912/- (Rs.48,384 X 18)

7Medical Expenses Rs.1,86,849/-

8Pain and Suffering Rs.70,000/-

9Special Diet Rs.50,000/-

10Transportation charges Rs.30,000/-

11Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/-

12Medical Expenses for future treatmentRs.40,000/-

13Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-

14Loss due to diminishing of marriage

prospects

Rs.2,00,000/-

15Compensation for permanent disabilityRs.48,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.15,75,761/-

DEDUCTION

Compensation awarded by the

Tribunal

Rs.2,83,849/-

Enhanced Compensation Rs.12,91,912/-

(Rs.15,75,761 – 2,83,849)

20. So far as the interest part is concerned, as held by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Dara Singh @ Dhara Banjara Vs. Shyam Singh Varma

2019 ACJ 3176 and R.Valli and Others VS. Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation (2022) 5 Supreme Court Cases 107, the appellant/claimant is

granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date

of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

FAO-2467-2025 (O&M) -15-

21. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this

judgment. The Tribunal is further directed to disburse the enhanced amount

of compensation along with interest in the account of the appellant/claimant.

The appellant/claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the

Tribunal.

22. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE

12.12.2025

Virender

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking

Whether reportable : Yes/No