IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

(i) FAO-2278-2011 (O&M)

Ramandeep Singh

...Appellant

VERSUS

M/s Sham Banquet Hall and others

...Respondents

(ii) FAO-2279-2011 (O&M)

Mandeep Kaur

...Appellant

VERSUS

M/s Sham Banquet Hall and others

...Respondents

(iii) XOBJC-77-CII-2011 (O&M)

Ramandeep Singh

...Appellant

VERSUS

M/s Sham Banquet Hall and others

...Respondents

(iv) XOBJC-78-CII-2011 (O&M)

Mandeep Kaur

...Appellant

VERSUS

M/s Sham Banquet Hall and others

...Respondents

Date of Decision: March 05, 2025

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -2-

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:Mr.Som Nath Saini, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr.Mrigank Sharma, Advocate

for respondent No.3/cross-objectors.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

These are two appeals, FAOs-2278 and 2279-2011, filed at the

instance of appellants-claimants, thereby, assailing adequacy of the

compensation awarded by learned Tribunal, on account of injuries sustained

by them, in a motor vehicular accident, which took place on 07.06.2008.

Cross objections, XOBJCs-77 and 78-CII-2011 have also been

filed by the insurance company, thereby, seeking reduction of the

compensation.

On appraisal of the evidence, brought on record, it was

concluded by learned Tribunal that accident was caused due to rash and

negligent driving of car bearing registration No.PB-11AD-0057, driven by

respondent No.2-Davinder Kumar, which led to extensive multiple injuries

on the person of Mandeep Kaur (who was driving the ill-fated motorcycle

bearing registration No.PB-39B-8415) and Ramandeep Singh (who was

pillion rider of the motorcycle).

In this backdrop, firstly, let us consider the compensation

awarded to appellant-claimant Mandeep Kaur.

From the ICSE Certificate, proved in evidence as Ex.P107, it is

evident that date of birth of appellant-claimant Mandeep Kaur is 24.03.1986

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -3-

and as such, on the date of accident i.e. 07.06.2008, she was 22 years old.

Also, from the educational certificates, coming on record, it stands

established that claimant-Mandeep Kaur was student of M.Sc. (Microbial

and Food Technology), in Punjabi University, Patiala, at the time of

accident. She had already passed Semester-II examination and the result-

cum-detail marks card of the same is Ex.P106.

Sharanjit Singh Bhatia, father of the claimant, through whom

the claim petition was filed, stepped into witness box as PW-1. In his

affidavit, the said witness has categorically stated about Mandeep Kaur to

have become 100% disabled. She is not in a position to speak and she is

completely bedridden. She is not in a condition to move from the bed. He

has also given the detail of the treatment undergone by her, on account of

injuries sustained in the accident in question. In this regard, suffice to

consider various documents, proved in evidence, where from, it is evident

that claimant Mandeep Kaur was taken to A.P.Jain Hospital, Rajpura, from

where, she was shifted to Fortis Hospital, Mohali and then to NINS

Hospital, Sector-34, Chandigarh. Various bills of the medical expenditure

have also been proved.

Even, PW-4 Dr.Amandeep Singh of Gian Sagar Medical Hospital has

been examined, who deposed about the treatment undergone by the

claimant. Even, PW-5 Davinder Kumar has proved the disability certificate

of Mandeep Kaur, which is Ex.P2. Therein, it is stated to be case of ‘head

injury #shaft humerous # clavicle ® and hemaplegia’. The disability was

stated to be 100% and it was stated to be ‘temporary for one year’.

Thereafter, again on 10.03.2010, re-assessment of the disability was done

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -4-

and it was held to be 100% and that too ‘temporary for one year’.

Considering the recitals of aforesaid disability certificates, proved in

evidence and taking it to be temporary disability, the compensation awarded,

on account of disability was Rs.2,00,000/-. However, the detail of the

compensation granted by learned Tribunal, on account of injuries sustained

by claimant-Mandeep Kaur, is reproduced in tabular form, as herein given:-

1.Medical expenses Rs.6,30,000/-

2.Loss of education Rs.2,00,000/-

3.Loss of future life and marriageRs.5,00,000/-

prospects

4.Charges of attendant Rs.2,00,000/-

5.Pain, suffering and transportationRs.2,00,000/-

6.Temporary disability Rs.2,00,000/-

Total Rs.19,30,000/-

However, the aforesaid ‘work on’ of the compensation

aforesaid, do call for re-determination.

At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that during the

pendency of the appeal, the assessment of the disability was again made on

26.03.2012 and therein, in the disability certificate, it was mentioned by the

Civil Surgeon, Patiala that the patient has right sided UMN hemiparesis and

very severe speech disability likely to be due to motor aphaise. Pt. Has

disability of 100% (hundred percent). It is unlikely to recover.

From the recitals aforesaid, it is evident that the disability now

is 100% and that too ‘permanent’. As such, it is evident that claimant-

Mandeep Kaur has become crippled person, for rest of her life. The ample

evidence, in this regard, has come on record.

The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -5-

legislation and its provisions make it clear that compensation should be

‘justly’ determined. A person therefore is not only to be compensated for

the injury suffered due to the accident, but on account of the loss suffered by

him/her, as a consequence of the impact of the accident, more particularly,

considering his/her ability to lead life, he/she led, prior to the life altering

event. A three Judges’ Bench in Jagdish Vs. Mohan and others, 2018 (4)

SCC 571, made the following relevant observations, on the intrinsic value of

human life and dignity that is attempted to be recognised, through such

compensatory awards:-

“…the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine

attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our

yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead

one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as

it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of

loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are

not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute

entitlements under law.”

The Courts should, as such, strive to provide a realistic

recompense, having regard to the realities of life, both in terms of

assessment of the extent of disability and its impact, including the income

generating capacity of the claimant and not only that, even the impact of the

accident on his/her life, on account of his/her physical disability. The Courts

should be mindful of the fact that even though, the physical disability may

be on the lesser count, but the functional disability, on account of injury

sustained, can be on a higher side.

The extent of economic loss, arising from a disability, may not be

measured in proportions, to the extent of permanent disability. In this

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -6-

regard, suffice to make reference to the decision rendered by the Supreme

Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Anr., 2011 (1) SCC 343. The

efforts of the Courts must always be to substantially ameliorate the misery of

the claimant and recognize his/her actual needs, by accounting for the

ground realities. However, the measures should be in correct proportion.

In Raj Kumar’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court,

brought out the difference between permanent disability and functional

disability, resulting in the loss of earning capacity. It was laid down that the

compensation, on account of loss of earning capacity, has to be granted, in

accordance with nature of the job undertaken by the victim of the motor

accident. Beneficial reference is made to observations made in the ibid case,

as herein given:-

“Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result

of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of

loss of future earnings, would depend upon the effect and

impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity.

The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of

permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss

of earning capacity. In most of the cases, the percentage of

economic loss, that is, percentage of loss of earning capacity,

arising from a permanent disability will be different from the

percentage of permanent disability. Some Tribunals wrongly

assume that in all cases, a particular extent (percentage) of

permanent disability would result in a corresponding loss of

earning capacity, and consequently, if the evidence produced

show 45% as the permanent disability, will hold that there is

45% loss of future earning capacity. In most of the cases,

equating the extent (percentage) of loss of earning capacity to

the extent (percentage) of permanent disability will result in

award of either too low or too high a compensation. What

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -7-

requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the

permanently disability on the earning capacity of the injured;

and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a

percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of

money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings (by applying the

standard multiplier method used to determine loss of

dependency). We may however note that in some cases, on

appreciation of evidence and assessment, the Tribunal may find

that percentage of loss of earning capacity as a result of the

permanent disability, is approximately the same as the

percentage of permanent disability in which case, of course, the

Tribunal will adopt the said percentage for determination of

compensation”

The test for determining the effect of permanent disability, on

future earning capacity involves three steps, as was laid down in Raj

Kumar's case (supra) and reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Chanappa Nagappa Muchalagoda vs. Divisional Manager, New India

Insurance Company Limited, 2020 (1) SCC 796, while observing, as herein

given:-

“13. Ascertainment of the effect of the permanent disability on

the actual earning capacity involves three steps. The Tribunal

has to first ascertain what activities the claimant could carry on

in spite of the permanent disability and what he could not do as

a result of the permanent disability (this is also relevant for

awarding compensation under the head of loss of amenities of

life). The second step is to ascertain his avocation, profession

and nature of work before the accident, as also his age. The

third step is to find out whether (i) the claimant is totally

disabled from earning any kind of livelihood, or (ii) whether in

spite of the permanent disability, the claimant could still

effectively carry on the activities and functions, which he was

earlier carrying on, or (iii) whether he was prevented or

restricted from discharging his previous activities and

functions, but could carry on some other or lesser scale of

activities and functions, so that he continues to earn or can

continue to earn his livelihood.”

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -8-

The above yardstick to be adopted in such exigencies was re-

affirmed in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and others, (2020) SCC

Online 752, wherein, it was observed, as herein given:-

“13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a 20-

year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to 12th

standard) incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of his right

hand (which was amputated). The disability was assessed to be

89%. However, the tribunal and the High Court reassessed the

disability to be only 45%, on the assumption that the

assessment for compensation was to be on a different basis, as

the injury entailed loss of only one arm. This approach, in the

opinion of this court, is completely mechanical and entirely

ignores realities. Whilst it is true that assessment of injury of

one limb or to one part may not entail permanent injury to the

whole body, the inquiry which the court has to conduct is the

resultant loss which the injury entails to the earning or income

generating capacity of the claimant. Thus, loss of one leg to

someone carrying on a vocation such as driving or something

that entails walking or constant mobility, results in severe

income generating impairment or its extinguishment altogether.

Likewise, for one involved in a job like a carpenter or

hairdresser, or machinist, and an experienced one at that, loss

of an arm, (more so a functional arm) leads to near extinction

of income generation. If the age of the victim is beyond 40, the

scope of rehabilitation too diminishes. These individual factors

are of crucial importance which are to be borne in mind while

determining the extent of permanent disablement, for the

purpose of assessment of loss of earning capacity.”

“20. Courts should not adopt a stereotypical or myopic

approach, but instead, view the matter taking into account the

realities of life, both in the assessment of the extent of

disabilities, and compensation under various heads. In the

present case, the loss of an arm, in the opinion of the court,

resulted in severe income earning impairment upon the

appellant. As a typist/data entry operator, full functioning of his

hands was essential to his livelihood. The extent of his

permanent disablement was assessed at 89%; however, the

High Court halved it to 45% on an entirely wrong application

of some ‘proportionate’ principle, which was illogical and is

unsupportable in law. What is to be seen, as emphasized by

decision after decision, is the impact of the injury upon the

income generating capacity of the victim. The loss of a limb (a

leg or arm) and its severity on that account is to be judged in

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -9-

relation to the profession, vocation or business of the victim;

there cannot be a blind arithmetic formula for ready

application. On an overview of the principles outlined in the

previous decisions, it is apparent that the income generating

capacity of the appellant was undoubtedly severely affected.

Maybe, it is not to the extent of 89%, given that he still has the

use of one arm, is young and as yet, hopefully training (and

rehabilitating) himself adequately for some other calling.

Nevertheless, the assessment of disability cannot be 45%; it is

assessed at 65% in the circumstances of this case.”

As already observed aforesaid, claimant-Mandeep Kaur has

suffered serious multiple injuries, resulting into permanent disability to the

extent of 100%. The last disability certificate has come on record and it

categorically states about the claimant to be having right side ‘hameparesis’

and also having severe speech disability and having 100% disability, which

is not likely to recover.

Considering this kind of crippling condition of the appellant-

claimant Mandeep Kaur, she had become dependent upon others for

lifetime. This condition had completely devastated her body functionality.

It is quite obvious that her youthful dreams, pertaining to her future hopes

and growth in life, were completely snuffed out by the serious accident. The

claimant’s impaired condition definitely has serious impact upon her

chances of settlement in life. Rather, it has been completely negated. The

permanent disability suffered by her, not only impaired her cognitive

abilities and her physical facilities, but there are other quantifiable

implications for the victim. The very fact that a healthy damsel, turned into

an invalid, being deprived of normal companionship and incapable of

leading a productive life, must have obviously made her suffer the loss of

self-dignity also. The efforts must be made to substantially ameliorate the

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -10-

misery of the claimant and recognize her actual needs by accounting for the

ground realities. However, these measures have to be in correct proportions.

As aptly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Smt.Sarla Verma vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and anr., 2009(3) RCR (Civil) 77, the 'just'

compensation is adequate compensation and the Award must be just that-'no

less and no more'. The plea of the victim suffering from a cruel twist of

fate, when asking for some more, is not extravagant, but it is for seeking

proportionate recompense, to negotiate with the unforeseeable and the

fortuitous twists, in her impaired life. Therefore, while the money awarded

by Courts can hardly redress the actual sufferings of the injured victim, the

Courts can make a genuine attempt to help restore the self-dignity of such

claimant, by awarding ‘just compensation’.

In this backdrop, considering the crippling condition of

Mandeep Kaur-injured, it is quite obvious that there can never be any

thought of the appellant-claimant to reverse back to the condition, both

physical and mental, as existing prior to the accident in question and to be

self-reliant and gainfully employed. It is in this scenario, the ‘work on’ of

the compensation, has to be made. For this, it is necessary to take note of

the fact that the claimant was 22 years old damsel, at the time of accident.

She was pursuing M.Sc. and she had already cleared Semester-II

examination, at the relevant time. Thus, she was well educated and therefore,

considering her educational inputs, her earnings can conveniently be taken

as Rs.10,000/- per month.

Considering her age, on the count of ‘future prospects’,

addition of 40%, ought to be made. Thus, the earnings of claimant are taken

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -11-

Rs.10000+4000(40%)=Rs.14,000/- per month, annual whereof, comes to be

Rs.1,68,000/-.

There has to be no deduction towards ‘personal expenses’, on

account of the case having been filed by the survivor of the accident with

severe injuries, resulting into permanent disability. In this regard, beneficial

reference is made to Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs. Laxman Maruti Jadhav

(Dead) through LRs and others, 2023(3) RCR (Civil) 573.

Looking at the age of claimant, the suitable multiplier, as per

Sarla Verma’s case (supra), to be applied is ‘18’. While considering the

disability to be 100%, the ‘loss of income’ comes to be

Rs.1,68,000x18=Rs.30,24,000/-.

It should be noted that various witnesses have been examined to

prove bills and the expenditure incurred on purchase of medicines.

Considering the same, learned Tribunal had appropriately granted an amount

of Rs.6,30,000/-, towards ‘medical expenses’.

During the course of treatment undergone by claimant-Mandeep

Kaur, obviously, mode of transport used, is bound to be a four-wheeler,

which must have been hired or used their own vehicle. However, on the

count of ‘pain and suffering’ as well as ‘transportation’, consolidated

amount of Rs.2 lakh had been granted by learned Tribunal, which needs to

be bifurcated. Considering the long hospitalization and the treatment still

continuing, on the count of ‘transportation’, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is

granted.

Obviously, during the period of treatment and thereafter, the

appellant-claimant must have been put on ‘special rich diet’, for the healing

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -12-

process. On this count also, another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted.

On the count of ‘attendant charges’, an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- has been granted by learned Tribunal. It has to be kept in

mind that the disability suffered by the claimant is 100% and thus, she is

unable to perform everyday activities and requires constant support, even for

the confined life, she is forced to lead. On account of this crippling

condition, the appellant-claimant is bound to be looked after by a bye-

stander/attendant for all her movements. Consequently, bearing in mind, the

need for assisted living, it is necessary to add the expenses for service of an

attendant for the claimant. Even though, it is submitted that there is no

material, as such, produced by the appellant-claimant, on actual expenses,

incurred for the services of the attendant and it is argued that no further

claim is merited under this head, but however, this submission is not tenable.

Considering the extent of disability suffered, besides the family

members, the appellant-claimant, ought to have been looked after by one

attendant throughout. Even if, the appellant-claimant is being looked after

by her family members, then also, it should be noted that they could perform

the role of care-giver, only by diverting their own time, from any form of

gainful employment, which could have generated income. Rather, their

resources and strength are bound to be stressed by the need to provide full

time care to the claimant. For the appellant-claimant to constantly rely on

them for stimulation and support, is also destined to cause emotional,

physical and financial fatigue, for the family members. Considering the

same, to quantify the expenses for the attendant, while making a

conservative estimate, Rs.4,000/- per month, is bare minimum. Taking it to

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -13-

be so, the annual expenses are worked upon as Rs.48,000/- and thus,

applying the multiplier of ‘18’, the compensation, on the count of

‘attendant charges’ comes to be Rs.48,000x18=Rs.8,64,000/-.

After the accident, apart from having become physically

invalid, claimant-Mandeep Kaur must have passed through a very traumatic

state of mind, considering her career having been jeopardised, apart from the

physical wreck befallen upon her. Thus, considering the same, on the count

of ‘pain and suffering’, compensation to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- is

granted.

Claimant-Mandeep Kaur was young bright girl, at the time of

taking place of the accident. She was doing post-graduation in Microbial and

Food Technology. Considering the same, her chances of settlement and

career graph are bound to be quite bright. Taking it to be so, obviously, her

prospects of marriage, were also bound to be good. However, on account of

having become crippled, the marriage prospects are near zero. Thus, on the

count of ‘loss of marriage prospects’, another amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is

granted.

Considering the crippling condition of claimant-Mandeep Kaur,

for one reason or the other, throughout her life, recurring medical treatment

is inevitable and bearing the same in mind, on the count of ‘future medical

expenses’, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- is granted.

Thus, on various counts, as detailed aforesaid, the compensation

to be granted to appellant-claimant-Mandeep Kaur, is re-computed as herein

given:-

1.Loss of income Rs.30,24,000

2.Medical Bills Rs.6,30,000/-

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -14-

3.Transportation Rs.2,00,000/-

4.Special rich diet Rs.2,00,000/-

5. Attendant charges Rs.8,64,000/-

6.Pain and suffering Rs.4,00,000/-

7.Loss of Marriage prospectsRs.5,00,000/-

8.Future medical needs Rs.4,00,000/-

Total Rs.62,18,000/-

As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.62,18,000-

19,30,000=Rs.42,88,000/-.

Now, let us consider the compensation awarded to appellant-

claimant Ramandeep Singh. Even, he had suffered serious multiple injuries

in the accident in question. From the educational certificate i.e. result-cum-

detail marks card, Ex.P92, it is evident that date of birth of appellant-

claimant Ramandeep Singh is 23.07.1992. As such, on the date of accident

i.e. 07.06.2008, he was 16 years old. Also, it stands established that he was

student of 10

th

class of Mukat Public School, Rajpura.

Sharanjit Singh Bhatia, father of claimant-Ramandeep Singh

had stepped into witness box as PW-2. He deposed about the injuries

sustained by Ramandeep Singh. He has also given the detail of the

treatment undergone by Ramandeep Singh, on account of injuries sustained

in the accident in question. He deposed about Ramandeep Singh to have

been taken to A.P.Jain Hospital, Rajpura, wherefrom, he was shifted to

Fortis Hospital, Mohali and then to NINS Hospital, Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Even, PW-5 Dr.Amandeep Singh of Gian Sagar Medical

Hospital has been examined, who deposed about the extent of treatment

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -15-

undergone by the claimant. Even, PW-6 Davinder Kumar had proved the

disability certificate of Ramandeep Singh, which is Ex.P2. Therein, it is

stated to be case of head injury Rt. hemeplegia #shaft femur ® #humerous.

The disability was stated to be 100% and it was stated to be ‘temporary for

one year’. Thereafter, again on 10.03.2010, re-assessment of the disability

was done and it was held to be 80% and that too, ‘temporary for one year’.

Considering the recitals of the aforesaid disability certificates, proved

in evidence and taking the disability to be ‘temporary’, the compensation

awarded, on account of disability was Rs.1,50,000/-. The detail of the

compensation worked upon, on various counts, as granted by learned

Tribunal, qua the injuries sustained by claimant-Ramandeep Singh, is

reproduced, as herein given:-

1.Medical expenses Rs.4,91,000/-

2.Loss of education Rs.1,00,000/-

3.Loss of future life and marriageRs.3,00,000/-

prospects

4.Charges of attendant Rs.1,50,000/-

5.Pain, suffering and transportationRs.1,50,000/-

6.Temporary disability Rs.1,50,000/-

Total Rs.13,41,000/-

However, the aforesaid ‘work on’ of the compensation, do call

for re-determination.

At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that during the

pendency of the appeal, this Court had ordered re-examination of the

claimant by the doctors of PGIMER, Chandigarh and thereupon, the re-

assessment of the disability was again conducted. As per the disability

certificate dated 07.05.2014, which is coming on record, it was observed as

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -16-

herein given:-

“(a)He/she is diagnosed case of Head Injury.

(b)He/she is a case of Multiple Disability. Extent of his/his

permanent physical impairment/disability has been evaluated

as per guidelines for the disabilities ticked below and shown

against the relevant disability in the table below:-

Sr.

No.

Disability Affected part

of body

DiagnosisPhysical/mental

disability (%)

1.Locomotor disability@ Rt.Moderate

Hemiparesis

50%

2.Low vision/Blindness Nil

3.Hearing impairment Nil

4.Mental

retardation/illness

IQ-106 Nil

5.Others Mild speech

involvement

Nil

6.Total 50%

(c)In the light of the above, his/her overall permanent

physical/mental impairment as per guidelines** as follows:-

In figures 50% percent In words Fifty Percent

2.This condition is non-progressive/not likely to improve.

3.Reassessment of disability is:

i) Not necessary”

Thus, the disability is stated to be 50%, which is permanent in

nature.

Considering the last disability certificate, which reflects about

the injury to be not likely to improve, the re-assessment of the

compensation, has to be made.

While being conscious of various factors, to be taken into

consideration, while considering the extent of disability suffered by the

claimant and impact of the same, on the functional disability, resulting in

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -17-

loss of earning capacity, as observed in the earlier portion of the judgment,

while dealing with the case of Mandeep Kaur, it has to be seen that qua the

loss of earning capacity, compensation has to be granted, considering the age

of the claimant, as well as the scope of growth in future.

From the evidence adduced, it stands established appellant-

claimant Ramandeep Singh was student of 10

th

class, at the relevant time.

Considering his educational inputs and also considering affluence of the

family, his earnings can conveniently be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.

Keeping in view the age of appellant-claimant Ramandeep

Singh to be 16 years, at the relevant time, on the count of ‘future

prospects’, addition of 40%, ought to be made. Thus, the earnings of

claimant is taken Rs.8000+3200(40%)=Rs.11,200/- per month, annual

whereof, comes to be Rs.1,34,400/-.

The question of deduction of the compensation, on the count of

‘personal expenses’ as observed earlier, is not called for.

Looking at the age of Ramandeep Singh to be 16 years, the

suitable multiplier to be applied is ‘18’. The claimant, as observed

aforesaid, had suffered ‘locomotor disability’. It was right moderate

hemeparesis, which definitely, reduced the earning capacity. However,

taking the same to be right moderate hemeparesis and there to be mild

speech involvement, in any case, the restricting of the compensation to 50%,

under the head of ‘permanent disability’ is uncalled for. However, when

there is mild speech involvement, in modest estimate, his functional

disability, as such, is taken to be 75%. As such, the ‘loss of earnings’ is

assessed as Rs.1,34,400x18x75/100=Rs.18,14,400/-.

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -18-

Another amount of Rs.4,91,000/- is granted, as awarded by learned

Tribunal, on the basis of the medical bills, proved in evidence.

However, on the same parameters, as considered in the case of

claimant-Mandeep Kaur, on account of disability, claimant-Ramandeep

Singh is bound to be not in a position to take care of himself and there is

bound to be ‘assisted living’ for him also. Thus, on the count of ‘attendant

charges’, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- is granted.

Considering the long hospitalization and the treatment still

continuing, on the count of ‘transportation’ an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is

granted.

Obviously, during the period of treatment and thereafter, the

appellant-claimant must have been put on ‘special rich diet’, for the healing

process. On this count, also another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted.

Claimant-Ramandeep Singh, on account of the injuries

sustained, must have passed through a very traumatic state of mind, while

considering his future to have been jeopardised, on account of injuries

sustained. Considering the same, on the count of ‘pain and suffering’, an

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted.

On account of medical ailment, the marriage prospects of

claimant Ramandeep Singh have also drastically reduced. Thus, on the

count of ‘loss of marriage prospects’, another amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is

granted.

Further, there is bound to be inevitable medical treatment

required from time to time. Considering the same, on the count of ‘future

medical expenses’, an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is granted.

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -19-

Thus, on the various counts, the compensation ought to be

granted to appellant-claimant-Ramandeep Singh, is re-computed as herein

given:-

1.Loss of income Rs.18,14,400/-

2.Medical Bills Rs.4,91,000/-

3.Attendant charges Rs.5,00,000/-

4.Transportation Rs.1,00,000/-

5. Special rich diet Rs.2,00,000/-

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

7.Loss of Marriage prospectsRs.2,00,000/-

8.Future medical expensesRs.2,00,000/-

Total Rs.37,05,400/-

As such, the enhanced compensation, after the deduction of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal comes to be Rs.37,05,400-

13,41,000=Rs.23,64,400/-.

On the enhanced amount of the compensation, as now worked

upon in both the appeals, the appellants-claimants shall be entitled to the

interest, at the rate of 6% per annum, from the date of filing of the appeals,

till realization of the enhanced amounts of compensation.

In view of the aforesaid observations, it is necessary to point out

that cross-objections were filed by the insurance company, thereby assailing

the compensation awarded to be on higher side, while taking the disability to

be temporary. However, as observed aforesaid, the disability is permanent,

in both the cases. Considering the same, there is no merit in the cross-

objections filed in both the appeals.

Accordingly, the impugned Award dated 03.11.2010 stands

FAO-2278-2011 and connected cases -20-

modified, to the extent, as indicated aforesaid. The remaining terms of the

impugned Award, shall remain the same.

In view of the above observations, appeals i.e. FAOs-2278 and

2279-2011 stand allowed, whereas cross-objections i.e. XOBJCs-77 and

78-2011 stand dismissed.

The pending civil misc. applications, if any, shall stand

disposed of.

March 05, 2025 (ARCHANA PURI)

Vgulati JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes

Whether reportable Yes/No