FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -1-

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)

SHILPA JAIN (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.

......Appellants

Vs.

INDERJEET JAIN AND ORS.

......Respondents

Reserved on: 19.12.2025

Date of decision: 15.01.2026

Uploaded on: 16.01.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO

Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES

CORAM:  HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present: Mr. M.K. Mittal, Advocate

for the appellants.

Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate

for respondent No.2.

Ms. Farheen Bajwa, Advocate

for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate

for respondent No.5.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

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

22.12.2016 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘1988 Act’), by the learned Motor Accident Claims

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

to the appellants/claimants to the tune of Rs.58,22,000/- along with interest @ 9%

per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant – Shilpa Jain

(since deceased) in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 08.10.2014.

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -2-

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 required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the

sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES

3.  The learned counsel for the appellants/claimants 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 appellants/claimants be enhanced, as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, however, vehemently

argues on the lines of the award and contends that the amount of compensation as

assessed by Ld. Tribunal is on the higher side.

5. He further contends that the learned tribunal has awarded arbitrary

and   exorbitant   amount   of   compensation   under   the   head   of   future   medical

expenses, which is liable to be reduced.

6. He further points out that the respondent No.2-insurance company

have already filed a separate appeal, being FAO-3186-2017, titled as “Bajaj

Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shilpa Jain (since deceased) through

LRs and others”, challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and seeking its reduction. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal

filed by the claimants be dismissed and that the compensation be suitably reduced

in accordance with the latest law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7.  I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole

record of this case with their able assistance.

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -3-

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

8. 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 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. NonApecuniary 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

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -4-

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.

(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 injuredAclaimant 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/A 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/A.

b) Loss of future earning per annum

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

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (5400 x 17) : Rs. 91,800/A

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

3000/A 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 future earning

capacity as 75%. Calculation of compensation will be as follows :

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs. 36,000/A .

b) Loss of future earning per annum

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -5-

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

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs. 4,59,000/A

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/A

b) Loss of future earning per annum

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

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

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

[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)].

9. 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;

(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 factAcentric or

quantumAcentric. We think that it would be condign that the

amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -6-

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.”

10. 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 15A25 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%

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.

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -7-

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

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. 9,81,978/A

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -8-

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

Future prospects (50 per cent

addition)

Rs.4,90,989/A

Medical expenses including

transport charges,

nourishment, etc.

Rs.18,46,864/A

Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/A

Loss of comfort, loss of

amenities and mental agony

Rs.1,50,000/A

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

Total Rs.41,69,831/A

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the compensation of

Rs. 41,69,831/A as claimed along with simple interest at the rate of

9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment.

11 A further perusal of the award reveals that deceased was stated to be a

homemaker. The learned Tribunal erred in assessing the income of the claimant

(Since deceased) on the lower side and contrary to the judgments of Apex Court

12. This Court in FAO-1292-2006, titled as ‘Jasbir Singh and another Vs.

Surjit Singh and others’, decided on 22.03.2018 while assessing the notional

income of the housewife has held as under:-

“In FAO No. 218 of 2014, a coAordinate Bench of this Court,

while relying upon the principles laid down in Lata Wadhwa

and others v. State of Bihar and others 2001(4) RCR(Civil)

673), made the following observations:A

“Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even

while noticing that the income of a skilled worker in

2012 was approximately Rs.8000/A the Tribunal has

wrongly assessed the income of the deceased as

Rs.9000/A. As per him once the notional income had been

taken a deduction had to be made for personal expenses.

This argument is flawed. In Lata Wadhwa and others v.

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -9-

State of Bihar and others reported as 2001(4) RCR

(Civil) 673 (where the accident had taken place in 1981)

the Hon'ble Supreme Court evaluated the contribution of

a house wife at Rs.3000/Aper month. The accident in the

present case took place after 23 years. In my considered

opinion to tag a house wife as a 'skilled worker' alone

does not do complete justice to her multifarious role as a

home manager. Keeping in view the lapse of 23 years

between the accident in the case of Lata Wadhwa and the

present accident and my conclusion that a house wife is

something more than a mere skilled worker it would not

be unreasonable to estimate the contribution of the

deceased in the present case at a higher figure. On the

whole I see no reason for reducing the quantum."

7. I find sufficient reason to follow the judgment in FAO No.

218 of 2014, particularly as I am informed that the Special

Leave Petition (SLP) filed against the order in this case has

been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Similarly, the

SLP filed in the other case cited by the appellants has also met

the same fate. Consequently, these orders have attained finality,

leaving no scope for further dispute regarding their binding

nature.

8. It is imperative to acknowledge the multifaceted role of a

housewife as a homemaker. Her contributions extend beyond

measurable economic parameters, encompassing household

management, child care, emotional support, and the upkeep of

familial stability. These services, though often unrecognized in

monetary terms, are invaluable to the functioning and wellA

being of a household. In assessing compensation, the court

must factor in this indispensable contribution, which would

otherwise necessitate considerable expenditure if outsourced.

In view of the above, it is just and reasonable to determine the

monthly income of the deceased Charanjit Kaur, housewife at

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -10-

Rs.9,000/A per month, therefore, the award requires

interference by the Court.”

13.  In  Jasbir Singh’s case (supra), the notional income of a housewife

was taken as Rs.9000/-. However, in the present case, with the accident occurring

in 2014, and in view of sustained inflation,  the rising cost of  living, and

jurisprudential acknowledgment of the far-reaching economic contribution of

homemakers, it is both just and reasonable to reassess the notional income of the

deceased.

14.  The   work   of   a   housewife   transcends   caretaking   embracing

preparation   of   meals   for   the   entire   family;   procurement   of   groceries   and

household supplies; cleaning and maintenance of the house and surroundings;

financial planning and budget management; child care and education; tending to

elderly dependents; coordinating repairs and homebased healthcare etc. These

services,   if   procured   in   the   open   market,   would   command   substantial

remuneration, underscoring the integral role played by a homemaker in family

stability.

15.  In light of the above legal position and having due regard to the facts

and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it appropriate to assess the

notional income of the claimant-Shilpa Jain (since deceased) at Rs.15,000/- per

month.

16. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has

awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the heads of

Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.

17. It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not only

impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -11-

non-quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact that healthy

person turns into invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable

of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity. As per the facts of the

case the claimant (since deceased) suffered grievous injuries on her person

including serious head injuries with multiple hemorrhagic contusions. Further, she

was operated for the same and was kept on ventilator till she succumbed to her

injuries on 21.11.2017. Furthermore, PW-7 Dr. Sanjeev Rajput Neurosurgeon has

also deposed that the claimant was being fed through pipes and had no movements

whatsoever. It is evident from the record that the claimant (since deceased) was in

a total vegetative state after the accident in question till her death. This fairly

concludes the fact that the claimant have suffered immense amount of pain and

agony due to the accident in question.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘KS Muralidhar versus R

Subbulakshmi   and   another  2024  INSC   886  highlighted  the   intangible   but

devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the same is

reproduce as under:- 

“15. Keeping in view the aboveAreferred judgments, the injuries

suffered, the `pain and suffering' caused, and the lifeAlong

nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimantAappellant,

and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find

the request of the claimantAappellant to be justified and as

such, award Rs.15,00,000/A under the head `pain and

suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the

claimantAappellant for enhancement of compensation was by a

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -12-

sum of Rs. 10,00,000/A, we find the compensation to be just,

fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”

19. Therefore,   in   view   of   the   above   judgment   and   facts   and

circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant

compensation of Fifteen lakhs under the heads of pain and suffering.

20. Further perusal of the record shows that the claimant (since deceased)

suffered various grievous injuries on her body making her life miserable.  As a result,

she had to depend on others for her daily activities and likely to have employed an

attendant to assist  her  for  her  necessary  physical movements,  till the day she

eventually died.  This Court has dealt with similar issue in case titled as Ajay Kumar

vs. Jasbir Singh and others, passed in FAO No 1356-2007, decided on 18.02.2025.

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

“ATTENDANT CHARGES

36. So far as attendant charges is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex

Court in Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand and others, 2020(2)R.C.R.(Civil) 27,

held that where injured was a female child aged about12 years and date

of the accident was 18.10.2007 and it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court that to determine the attendant charges, Multiplier system should

be applied. Relevant paragraphs No. 22 and 25 of the aforesaid judgment

are as under:

"22. The attendant charges have been awarded by the High Court

at the rate of Rs.2,500 per month for 44 years, which works out

to Rs. 13,20,000. Unfortunately, this system is not a proper

system. Multiplier system is used to balance out various factors.

When compensation is awarded in lump sum, various facts are

taken into consideration. When compensation is paid in lump

sum, this court has always followed the multiplier system. The

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -13-

multiplier system should be followed not only for determining the

compensation on account of loss of income but also for

determining the attendant charges, etc. This system was

recognized by this Court in Gobald Motor Service Ltd. v. R.M.K.

Veluswami, 1958A65 ACJ 179 (SC).

The multiplier system factors in the inflation rate, the rate of

interest payable on the lump sum award, the longevity of the

claimant, and also other issues such as the uncertainties of life.

Out of all the various alternative methods, the multiplier method

has been recognized as the most realistic and reasonable method.

It ensures better justice between the parties and thus results in

award of just compensation' within the meaning of the Act.

23. xxxxx

24. xxxxx

25. Having held so, we are clearly of the view that the basic

amount taken for determining attendant charges is very much on

the lower side. We must remember that this little girl is severely

suffering from incontinence meaning that she does not have

control over her bodily functions like passing urine and faeces.

As she grows older, she will not be able to handle her periods.

She requires an attendant virtually 24 hours a day. She requires

an attendant who though may not be medically trained but must

be capable of handling a child who is bedridden. She would

require an attendant who would ensure that she does not suffer

from bed sores. The claimant has placed before us a notification

of the State of Haryana of the year 2010, wherein the wages for

skilled labourer is Rs.4,846 per month. We, therefore, assess the

cost of one attendant at Rs.5,000 and she will require two

attendants which works out to Rs.10,000/A per month, which

comes to Rs. 1,20,000/A per annum, and using the multiplier of

18 it works out Rs. 21,60,000 for attendant charges for her entire

life. This take care of all the pecuniary damages.

37. In view of the above as per the Disability Certificate, which

is 100% and which requires fullAtime attendant, therefore, it would be

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -14-

appropriate to decide the attendant charges accordingly. 100%

disability would require day and night attendants, meaning thereby

two attendants would be required. Further 100% disability of the

appellantAclaimant would require trained attendant i.e. who should

have knowledge of nursing and experience as well. Further the

minimum amount which an attendant would demand is Rs.10,000/A.

Since two attendants are required for 100% disability, it would be

appropriate to take the minimum amount of Rs.10,000/A each of two

attendants i.e. amounting to Rs.20,000/A for two attendants.

38. In the instant case, there is substantial medical evidence

establishing that the injured appellantAclaimant has suffered from a

100% disability of the lower limb, as per Ex. PA4. Over the past 20

years since the accident on 31.05.2005, the injured has faced

significant challenges in leading a normal life. Furthermore, medical

testimony confirms that the injured person is unable to carry out

daily activities independently.

39. Applying the principles laid down in Kajal’s case (supra)

it is evident that the appellantAclaimant requires continuous

assistance from two attendants for 24 hours a day. In Kajal’s case

(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that the multiplier

system must be followed to determine attendant charges, taking into

account factors such as longevity, inflation, interest rates, and the

uncertainties of life. The Court also highlighted that an individual

with severe disabilities requires dedicated attendants, even if they are

not medically trained, to ensure proper care and prevent further

complications such as bedsores.

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -15-

21. In view of the above judgment and considering age and disability

suffered by the appellant-Shilpa Jain (since deceased), the appellant(s) are entitled to

attendant charges to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-.

22. Adverting to the contention raised by the respondent No.2-insurance

₹company that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum of  30,00,000/-

towards future medical expenses. The respondents have argued that the award is

not supported by cogent evidence and is exorbitant and arbitrary and since the

claimant-Shilpa Jain has passed away, the future medical expenses are not to be

given.  

The legal position on this issue stands conclusively settled by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in  Dhannalal @ Dhanraj (Dead) v. Nasir Khan, 2025 INSC

1177. The Apex Court authoritatively held that the amounts computed towards

medical expenses—both incurred and future—as well as expenses for a personal

attendant, are liable to be sustained where the injured victim survived for a

considerable period after the accident in a vegetative state. In such circumstances,

the Court observed that these amounts, having accrued during the lifetime of the

injured, form part of the estate of the injured-victim. Consequently, upon the death

of the injured, the legal heirs are legally entitled to recover the said amounts as

representatives of the estate.

The   relevant   extract   of   the   aforesaid   judgment   is   reproduced

hereunder:

“

12. The award of the Tribunal as modified and enhanced

by the High Court determined a total award of

Rs.5,52,095/" as computed under mental agony, pain and

su$ering, nourishment, transportation and medical

expenses, incurred and future, as also expenses for a

personal attendant which has to be sustained, since the

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -16-

injured had lived for 11 years after the accident, in a

vegetative state. That has already become a part of the

estate of the injured"victim.”

23. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court has consistently reiterated that the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a piece of beneficial legislation and that the guiding

principle for awarding compensation in motor accident claims is that of “just

compensation”. Recently, in K. Ramya v. Insurance Company Ltd.     2022 SCC   

Online   SC   1338,   the   Supreme   Court   reaffirmed   this   settled   position   and

emphasized   that   compensation   awarded   must   be   fair,  reasonable,   and

commensurate with the injuries suffered by the victim.

24. The relevant paragraphs of the same is reproduced as under:

“11. At the outset, it is pertinent to reiterate the concept of `just'

compensation under Section 168 of the Act. It is a settled

proposition, now through a catena of decisions including the

one rendered by the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi that

compensation must be fair, reasonable and equitable. Further,

the determination of quantum is a factAdependent exercise

which must be liberal and not parsimonious. It must be

emphasized that compensation is a more comprehensive form

of pecuniary relief which involves a broadAbased approach

unlike damages as noted by this court in Yadava Kumar v.

Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd (2010) 10

SCC 341, para 17. The discussion in the abovementioned cases

highlights that Tribunals under the Act have been granted

reasonable flexibility in determining `just' compensation and

are not bound by any rigid arithmetic rules or strict evidentiary

standards to compute loss unlike in the case of damages.

Hence, any interference by the Appellate Courts should

ordinarily be allowed only when the compensation is

`exorbitant' or `arbitrary'.

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -17-

12. Furthermore, Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is a beneficial

and welfare legislationthat seeks to provide compensation as

per the contemporaneous position of an individual which is

essentially forwardAlooking. Unlike tortious liability, which is

chiefly concerned with making up for the past and reinstating a

claimant to his original position, the compensation under the

Act is concerned with providing stability and continuity in

peoples' lives in the future. Keeping the abovementioned

principles in the backdrop, we now move on to the facts at

hand.”

25. As per the facts of the present case, the claimant (since deceased) had

suffered grievous and life-threatening injuries, including severe head injuries with

multiple   hemorrhagic   contusions.   Post-surgery,   she  was   kept   on   ventilatory

support and underwent prolonged  treatment at various hospitals. She remained in

a complete vegetative state from the date of the accident till her eventual demise.

26. In view of the nature and severity of the injuries, the prolonged

hospitalization, and the continuous medical care required, the learned Tribunal has

rightly awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. This Court finds

no  infirmity,  arbitrariness,  or  excessiveness  in  the said award,  which is in

consonance with the settled principles governing the grant of just compensation.

Therefore, no interference is warranted in this regard.

27. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has

erred in not adding any amount of future prospects to the income of the claimant,

therefore, as per settled law 40% is to be added as future prospects.

28. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted

by the learned Tribunal under the head of transportation. Furthermore, no amount

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -18-

was granted for loss of amenities of life and special diet. Therefore, the award

requires indulgence of this Court.

RELIEF 

29. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated

22.12.2016 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid

down by Hon’ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellants-claimants

are held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1 Income Rs.15,000/A

2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.6,000/A

(40% of Rs.15,000/A)

3 Annual Income Rs.2,52,000/A

(Rs.21,000/A X 12)

4 Loss of future earning on

account of 100% disability

Rs.2,52,000/A

(Rs.2,52,000/A X 100%)

5 Multiplier of 17 Rs.42,84,000/A

(Rs.2,52,000/AX 17)

6 Medical Expenses Rs.12,44,000/A

7 Pain and suffering Rs.15,00,000/A

8 Attendant Charges Rs.8,00,000/A

9 Transportation Charges Rs.2,00,000/A

10 Loss of amenities of life Rs.5,00,000/A

11 Future medical expenses Rs.30,00,000/-

12 Special Diet Rs.3,00,000/A

13Total compensation awarded:- Rs.1,18,20,000/-

14Deduction:-

Amount awarded by Tribunal

Rs.58,22,000/-

15Enhanced   amount   of

compensation

Rs. 59,98,000 /-

(1,18,20,000- 58,22,000)

30.   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   

FAO-4806-2017 (O&M)  -19-

Supreme Court Cases 107,  the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9%

per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.

31. Respondent   No.2-Insurance   Company   is   directed   to  deposit   the

enhanced amount 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 directed

to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the

appellants-claimants.

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

                      (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

                        JUDGE

15.01.2026

Ayub    

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking

       Whether reportable      : Yes/No