FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

1.

HARJINDER SINGH

Vs.

JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents

2.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Vs.

HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents

1. The date when the judgment was reserved

2. The date when the judgment is pronounced

3. The date when the

4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.

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

and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Present: Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate

for the appellants in FAO

for respondent No.1 in FAO

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate

for the respondent

and for the appellant (in FAO

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

CM-4979-CII-2019 IN

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in

filing the appeal.

Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of r

Company did not

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

HARJINDER SINGH

JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents

AND

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Vs.

HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents

The date when the judgment was reserved

The date when the judgment is pronounced

The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.

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

and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate

for the appellants in FAO-1651-2019 and

for respondent No.1 in FAO-4673-2018.

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocate

Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate

for the respondent- Insurance Company in FAO

and for the appellant (in FAO-4673-2018).

*****

HARKESH MANUJA, J.

2019 IN FAO-1651-2019

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in

Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of r

not choose to file reply to the application.

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

…Appellant

JAGDISH SINGH AND OTHERS …Respondents

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. ….Appellant

HARJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS ….Respondents

23.02.2026

27.03.2026

judgment is uploaded on the website 27.03.2026

Whether only operative part of the judgment is

pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced.

Full

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

applicable.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

2019 and

2018.

urance Company in FAO-1651-2019

2018).

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in

Notice of the application was issued vide order dated 09.09.2025.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance

the application.

1

This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 131 days in

Insurance

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit,

the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in fil

hereby condoned.

MAIN CASE

1. Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated

31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Fatehgarh Sahib

decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been

preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation

awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be

reduced (FAO-1651

injuries suffered by

occurred on 01.01.2016

2. The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.

20,50,140/- as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from

the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the

appeals, involving challeng

taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO

1651-2019 for reference.

FACTS

3. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned

Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit,

the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in fil

hereby condoned.

Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Fatehgarh Sahib (for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being

decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been

preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation

awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be

1651-2019 & FAO-4673-2018

injuries suffered by Harjinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident which

01.01.2016.

The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.

as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from

the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the

appeals, involving challenge to the quantum of compensation, are thus,

taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO

2019 for reference.

The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned

Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered

2

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit,

the same is allowed. The delay of 131 days in filing the present appeal is

Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being

decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been

preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation

awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

Company, assailing the quantum of compensation on the ground that the

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be

respectively), on account of

Singh in a motor vehicular accident which

The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.

as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from

the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the

e to the quantum of compensation, are thus,

taken up together for adjudication. Facts are being culled out from FAO-

The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned

Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered

2

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the

averments made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit,

ing the present appeal is

Both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common award dated

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

(for brevity, “the Tribunal”), and are, therefore, being

decided together by this common judgment. One appeal has been

preferred by the claimant/appellant seeking enhancement of compensation

awarded, whereas, the second appeal has been preferred by the Insurance

the ground that the

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is excessive and liable to be

respectively), on account of

Singh in a motor vehicular accident which

The learned Tribunal, vide the impugned award, granted a sum of Rs.

as compensation, along with interest @ 6% per annum from

the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realization. Both the

e to the quantum of compensation, are thus,

-

The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned

Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while

alleging rash and negligent driv

23-D-5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the

pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues

and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought

record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as

noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending

vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.

4. Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03.

passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred

2019 seeking enhancement of compensation

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal wa

commensurate with the injuries suffered, the per

suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance

Company, on the other hand, filed

quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal

erred in awarding an

calling for reduction of the award.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the

impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed b

wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to

the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite

recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred

in applying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while

alleging rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing registration No. PB

5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the

pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues

and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought

record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as

noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending

vehicle to be negligent in driving the same.

Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03.

passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred

seeking enhancement of compensation

warded by the learned Tribunal was wholly inadequate and not

with the injuries suffered, the per

suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance

Company, on the other hand, filed FAO-

quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal

erred in awarding an excessive amount under various heads, thereby

calling for reduction of the award.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the

impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed b

wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to

the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite

recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred

ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further

3

by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while

ing of vehicle bearing registration No. PB-

5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the

pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues

and, after appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence brought on

record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as

noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending

Being aggrieved of the aforementioned award dated 31.03.2018

passed by the learned Tribunal, appellant/claimant preferred FAO-1651-

seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that the

s wholly inadequate and not

with the injuries suffered, the period of treatment, pain and

suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance

-4673-2018 challenging the

quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal

excessive amount under various heads, thereby

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the

impugned award dated 31.03.2018 passed by the learned Tribunal was

wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to

the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite

recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred

ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further

3

by him in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 01.01.2016 while

-

5103 being driven by respondent No.1/driver. On the basis of the

pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the necessary issues

on

record, passed the award dated 31.03.2018 granting compensation, as

noticed in the preceding paragraph after holding the driver of the offending

2018

-

on the ground that the

s wholly inadequate and not

iod of treatment, pain and

suffering, medical expenses and other attendant losses. The Insurance

challenging the

quantum of compensation primarily on the ground that the learned Tribunal

excessive amount under various heads, thereby

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the

y the learned Tribunal was

wholly unsustainable in law as well as on facts, particularly with regard to

the assessment of just compensation. It was submitted that despite

recording a finding of 100% functional disability, the learned Tribunal erred

ying only 25% future prospects instead of 30%, and further

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses,

which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the

compensation awarded under various heads, including pai

attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and

transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the

nature, extent and lifelong impact

who was rendered completely

principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel

contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non

pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in misca

of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced

along with appropriate rate of interest.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that

the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law

and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was

contended that the learned Tribun

appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies

in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the

plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurren

argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse

inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability,

subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW

possibility of improvement.

appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses,

which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the

compensation awarded under various heads, including pai

attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and

transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the

nature, extent and lifelong impact of the injuries suffered by the claimant,

who was rendered completely dependent. Placing reliance upon settled

principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel

contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non

pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in misca

of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced

along with appropriate rate of interest.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that

the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law

and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was

contended that the learned Tribunal erroneously

appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies

in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the

plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurren

argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse

inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability,

subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW

possibility of improvement. Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to

appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post

4

committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses,

which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the

compensation awarded under various heads, including pain and suffering,

attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and

transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the

of the injuries suffered by the claimant,

dependent. Placing reliance upon settled

principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel

contended that the award failed to account for both pecuniary and non-

pecuniary losses in their true perspective, thereby resulted in miscarriage

of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No. 3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that

the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law

and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was

al erroneously fastened liability upon the

appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies

in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the

plea that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the occurrence. He further

argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse

inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability,

subject to reassessment, and even the testimony of CW-4 indicated

Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to

appreciate that the claimant resumed employment post-accident, as

4

committed a patent illegality in deducting 50% towards personal expenses,

which was impermissible in injury cases. He further argued that the

n and suffering,

attendant charges, future medical expenses, special diet and

transportation, was grossly inadequate and did not commensurate with the

of the injuries suffered by the claimant,

dependent. Placing reliance upon settled

principles governing grant of compensation in injury cases, learned counsel

-

rriage

of justice. It was thus prayed that the compensation be suitably enhanced

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that

the impugned award dated 31.03.2018 was vitiated by patent errors of law

and misappreciation of evidence, thereby rendering it unsustainable. It was

fastened liability upon the

appellant/claimant without properly considering the material inconsistencies

in the claimant’s case, including the delayed registration of FIR and the

ce. He further

argued that the finding of 100% functional disability was wholly perverse

inasmuch as the medical evidence on record only reflected 65% disability,

4 indicated

Moreover, the learned Tribunal failed to

accident, as

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

evident from salary slips, thereby negating

earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensatio

was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles,

warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the

appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

7. I have heard learned c

book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant.

8. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to

draw guidance from the principles laid d

Apex Court. In “Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.”

1 SCC 343 the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to

be awarded for personal injuries.

“6. The heads under which compensation is

the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitaliza

transportation,

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which

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

injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

om salary slips, thereby negating the conclusion of total loss of

earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensatio

was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles,

warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the

appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper

book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant.

Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to

draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon’ble

“Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.”

the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to

be awarded for personal injuries.

“6. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

Expenses relating to treatment, hospitaliza

transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

Loss of earnings (and other gains) which

made had he not been injured, comprising:

Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

Future medical expenses.

pecuniary damages (General Damages

Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the

injuries.

Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

5

the conclusion of total loss of

earning capacity. In these circumstances, the computation of compensation

was grossly exaggerated and contrary to settled principles, and therefore

warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the

appellant/Insurance Company from the liability fastened upon it.

ounsel for the parties and perused the paper-

book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to

own in similar cases by the Hon’ble

“Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors.” reported as (2011)

the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to

awarded in personal injury cases are

Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,

nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have

made had he not been injured, comprising:

Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.

pecuniary damages (General Damages)

, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the

Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).

5

the conclusion of total loss of

n

and therefore

warranted interference by this Court and absolution of the

-

book. I find force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to

own in similar cases by the Hon’ble

(2011)

the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to

awarded in personal injury cases are

tion, medicines,

the injured would have

, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under

heads (i), (ii)

specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the

compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii)

relating to loss of fu

medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

and loss of expectation of life”.

ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME”

9. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45

years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/

working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed

the monthly income of the appellant

consonance with the statement of CW

card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as

Ex.PW3/C. The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence

and does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court

finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as

recorded by the learned Tribunal.

However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant

resumed employment post

negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit

and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a

limited or accommodated capacity,

earning capacity to its pre

of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be

assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impac

on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties.

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under

ds (i), (ii) (a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is

specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the

compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii)

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”.

ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME”

A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45

years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/

working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed

the monthly income of the appellant/claimant @ Rs. 18,268/

consonance with the statement of CW-3 who also proved on record identity

card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as

The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence

does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court

finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as

recorded by the learned Tribunal.

However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant

resumed employment post-accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby

negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit

and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a

limited or accommodated capacity, cannot be equated with restoration of

earning capacity to its pre-accident level. It is well settled that the concept

of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be

assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impac

on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties.

6

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under

and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is

specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the

compensation will granted under any of the heads (ii) (b), (iii), (v) and (vi)

ture earnings on account of permanent disability, future

medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

ASSESSMENT UNDER “LOSS OF INCOME”

A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45

years old at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 18,268/- per month by

working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed

/claimant @ Rs. 18,268/- per month, in

3 who also proved on record identity

card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as

The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence

does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court

finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as

However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant

accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby

negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit

and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a

cannot be equated with restoration of

accident level. It is well settled that the concept

of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be

assessed keeping in view the nature of avocation and the impact of injuries

on the ability of the claimant to effectively discharge his duties.

6

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under

and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is

specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, the

(iii), (v) and (vi)

ture earnings on account of permanent disability, future

medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage)

A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45

per month by

working at Excel Security Company. The learned Tribunal rightly assessed

per month, in

3 who also proved on record identity

card as Ex.PW3/A, Letter of Appointment Ex.CW3/B and salary sheet as

The said assessment is based on cogent and reliable evidence

does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity. Therefore, this Court

finds no ground to interfere with the determination of the monthly income as

However, the argument of the Insurance Company that the claimant

accident, as evident from salary slips, thereby

negating the conclusion of total loss of earning capacity, is devoid of merit

and liable to be rejected. Mere resumption of employment, that too in a

cannot be equated with restoration of

accident level. It is well settled that the concept

of functional disability is distinct from physical disability and has to be

t of injuries

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant

suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability,

which would necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work

performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do

not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in

the same manner or with the same efficiency as pri

do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment

extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent

evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be

made the sole basis to

Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its

correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a

significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the

Insurance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded.

9.1 Now, a perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being

the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant

remained hospitalized from 01.01.2016 to

income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is

assessed as Rs.

motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and

the appellant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to

remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from

the re-assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that

the appellant/claimant is suffering from

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant

suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability,

necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work

performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do

not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in

the same manner or with the same efficiency as pri

do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment

extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent

evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be

made the sole basis to negate the loss of earning capacity.

Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its

correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a

significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the

surance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded.

perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being

the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant

remained hospitalized from 01.01.2016 to 18.01.2016.

income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is

assessed as Rs. Rs. 10,960.8 (608.93 x 18).

motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and

llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to

remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from

assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that

the appellant/claimant is suffering from neurocognit

7

In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant

suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability,

necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work

performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do

not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in

the same manner or with the same efficiency as prior to the accident, nor

do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment

extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent

evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be

negate the loss of earning capacity.

Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its

correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a

significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the

surance Company to the contrary deserves to be discarded.

perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being

the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant

18.01.2016. Thus, the loss of

income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is

Rs. 10,960.8 (608.93 x 18). Further, it is evident that the

motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and

llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to

remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from

assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that

neurocognitive impairment in the

7

In the present case, the record reflects that the appellant/claimant

suffered grievous injuries resulting in substantial permanent disability,

necessarily impair his efficiency, mobility and overall work

performance. The salary slips relied upon by the Insurance Company do

not conclusively establish that the claimant was discharging his duties in

or to the accident, nor

do they rule out the possibility of sympathetic or sheltered employment

extended by the employer. Such documents, in absence of cogent

evidence demonstrating full restoration of functional capacity, cannot be

Therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly appreciated the evidence in its

correct perspective and concluded that the claimant had suffered a

significant loss of earning capacity, and the contention raised by the

perusal of the document placed on record as Ex.C43, being

the admission record of Fortis Hospital, shows that the appellant/claimant

Thus, the loss of

income suffered by the appellant/claimant during the said period is

Further, it is evident that the

motor vehicular accident in the present case took place on 01.01.2016 and

llant/claimant has not recovered completely and continues to

remain dependent upon his wife. This fact also stands substantiated from

assessment conducted at PGIMER, Chandigarh, which records that

ive impairment in the

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury

secondary personality changes

disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability,

with corrected visio

found to be suffering from

In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries,

particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting me

and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the

absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive

deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his

ability to lead a normal l

The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the

appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he

did prior to the accident.

Accordingly, this

the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the

appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled

principles governing assessment of functional disability vis

capacity. Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of

Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar”

cases where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident,

compensation may be awarded not

also towards future prospects.

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury

secondary personality changes. Although there is no gross locomotor

disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability,

with corrected vision of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been

found to be suffering from bilateral sensorineural hearing loss

In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries,

particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting me

and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the

absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive

deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his

ability to lead a normal life and to effectively engage in gainful employment.

The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the

appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he

did prior to the accident.

Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by

the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the

appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled

principles governing assessment of functional disability vis

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of

Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar” reported as

where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident,

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

also towards future prospects.

8

form of dementia as a consequence of the head injury, accompanied by

. Although there is no gross locomotor

disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability,

n of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been

bilateral sensorineural hearing loss.

In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries,

particularly the neurocognitive impairment affecting memory, behaviour,

and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the

absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive

deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his

ife and to effectively engage in gainful employment.

The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the

appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he

Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by

the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the

appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled

principles governing assessment of functional disability vis-à-vis earning

Additionally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Pappu

reported as 2020 INSC 553 held that in

where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident,

only for the future loss of income but

8

, accompanied by

. Although there is no gross locomotor

disability on neurosurgical assessment and no significant visual disability,

n of 6/6 in both eyes, the appellant/claimant has been

In such circumstances, the cumulative effect of the aforesaid injuries,

mory, behaviour,

and overall functional capacity, cannot be understated. Even in the

absence of substantial locomotor disability, the mental and cognitive

deficits suffered by the appellant/claimant have a profound bearing on his

ife and to effectively engage in gainful employment.

The nature of such disability, being permanent and debilitating, renders the

appellant/claimant incapable of performing his avocation in the manner he

Court finds no infirmity in the assessment made by

the learned Tribunal in treating the functional disability of the

appellant/claimant as 100%, as the same is in consonance with the settled

s earning

“Pappu

held that in

where a claimant suffers disability due to a motor vehicle accident,

only for the future loss of income but

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

9.2 A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claiman

time of accident was more than 45

prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Sethi” reported as

conclusion in this rega

“59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the

income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a

permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The

addition should be

years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the

addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.”

9.3 In view of the above discussion, the appell

the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of

future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant

after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4)

per month for the purpose of calculation of compensation.

Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the

extent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/

100/100).

ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICA

EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION”

10. In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the

extent of 65%, which

Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claiman

time of accident was more than 45 years of age

prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.3, which records the

conclusion in this regard, reads as under:-

“59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the

income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a

permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The

addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50

years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the

addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.”

In view of the above discussion, the appell

the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of

future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant

after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4)

r month for the purpose of calculation of compensation.

Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the

ent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/

ASSESSMENT UNDER “MEDICA L EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL

EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION”

In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the

%, which stands duly established

Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW

9

A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claimant at the

of age. The computation of future

prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of

“National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

para 59.3, which records the

“59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the

income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a

permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The

30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50

years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the

addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax.”

In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant in addition to

the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of

future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant

after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4)

r month for the purpose of calculation of compensation. Accordingly, this

Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the

ent of 100% is assessed @ Rs. 39,89,731.2/- (23,748.4 x 12 x 14 x

L EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL

In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the

established from the testimony of Dr.

Subho Chakroborty, who appeared as CW -4. Furthermore, the

9

t at the

computation of future

prospects is to be done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of

“National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay

para 59.3, which records the

“59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the

income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a

permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The

30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50

years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the

ant/claimant in addition to

the loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of

future prospects @ 30%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant

after adding future prospects be taken as Rs. 23,748.4 (18,268 + 5,480.4)

Accordingly, this

Court finds that the compensation payable for the functional disability to the

(23,748.4 x 12 x 14 x

L EXPENSES/FUTURE MEDICAL

In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the

.

. Furthermore, the

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

appellant/claimant has also proved on record med

Ex.C4 to Ex.C53

towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical

expenses were borne

to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses.

mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and

the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabili

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view

finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of

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

the bills for claim/reimbursement purposes,

31,409/- yet in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation unde

head is assessed as Rs. 1

10.1 As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon

his wife and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self

activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech

remains limited and largely self

trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggre

Chakroborty (CW

extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is

no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such

circumstances, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be

adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and

prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

appellant/claimant has also proved on record med

Ex.C4 to Ex.C53, reflecting that an amount of Rs. 31,409/

towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical

expenses were borne by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled

to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses.

mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and

the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabili

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view

finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of

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

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

in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation unde

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

As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon

e and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self

activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech

remains limited and largely self-directed, and any interruption tends to

trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggre

Chakroborty (CW-4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face

extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is

no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such

es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be

adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and

prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the

10

appellant/claimant has also proved on record medical bills and receipts as

reflecting that an amount of Rs. 31,409/- was incurred

towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical

by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled

to seek reimbursement of those particular expenses. However, keeping in

mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and

the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view

finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of

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

though, total bills proved are for

in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation under this

As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon

e and, with her assistance, is able to perform only basic self-care

activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech

directed, and any interruption tends to

trigger verbal, and at times, physical aggression. Further, Dr. Subho

4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face

extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is

no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such

es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be

adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and

prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the

10

ical bills and receipts as

was incurred

towards his treatment. It has also come on record that certain medical

by ECHS, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled

, keeping in

mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident and

tation period, the

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view

finds force from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of

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

though, total bills proved are for

r this

As noted hereinabove, the appellant/claimant is dependent upon

care

activities such as bathing, toileting, dressing and eating. His speech

directed, and any interruption tends to

Further, Dr. Subho

4) has opined that the appellant/claimant would face

extreme difficulty in performing even the simplest of tasks and that there is

no likelihood of recovery after a period of five years. In view of such

es, the family of the appellant/claimant is required to be

adequately financially equipped to manage both the existing and

prospective medical needs arising out of the condition of the

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

appellant/claimant.

award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/

ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS

11. For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and

sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886,

wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non

heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospit

mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the

same is reproduced as under:

“15. Keeping in view the above

suffered, the ‘

the disability afflicted upon the claimant

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

claimant

under the head ‘

prayer of the claimant

was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/

just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”

11.1 In light of the settled legal position enun

Supreme Court in

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from

the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the

appellant/claimant sustained gri

than that, Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

appellant/claimant. Accordingly, it is considered just and appropriate

award a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- under this head.

ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS

For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and

sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886,

wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non

heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospit

mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the

same is reproduced as under:-

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

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

the disability afflicted upon the claimant

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 consci

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.”

In light of the settled legal position enun

Supreme Court in Muralidhar’s case (supra),

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from

the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the

appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries,

Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board

11

Accordingly, it is considered just and appropriate to

under this head.

ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS

For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and

sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886,

wherein it was held that the award of compensation under non-pecuniary

heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

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

mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the

referred judgments, the injuries

’ 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

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

’, fully conscious of the fact that the

appellant for enhancement of compensation

, we find the compensation to be

just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded.”

In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble

case (supra), and having due regard to

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from

the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the

evous injuries, including head injury . More

Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board

11

to

For assessing just compensation under the head of pain and

sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

K. Murlidhar vs. R. Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886,

pecuniary

heads must be reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

alization, and the

mental and physical agony endured by the claimant. Relevant portion of the

referred judgments, the injuries

of

appellant, and the statement

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

-

ous of the fact that the

appellant for enhancement of compensation

, we find the compensation to be

ciated by the Hon’ble

and having due regard to

the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it is evident from

the documentary evidence duly proved on record that the

. More

Dr. Subho Chakraborty, Medical Special Disability Board

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW

disability of the appellant/claimant @ 65

opinion that an amount of Rs. 10

pain and sufferings.

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’

12. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant,

particularly the head injury followed by

evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical

supervision and is

post-operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate

compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyanc

attendant charges

hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an

attendant for day-

heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under

these heads is

considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

CONCLUSION

13. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the

following manner:

S.No. Nature

1. Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW

disability of the appellant/claimant @ 65%. Thus, this Court is of the

opinion that an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- is awarded under the head of

pain and sufferings.

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’

In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant,

particularly the head injury followed by prolonged post

evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical

supervision and is necessarily required to undergo regular follow

operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate

compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyanc

attendant charges. Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent

hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an

-to-day activities, the compen

heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under

reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 5

considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the

following manner:-

Nature

Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8

12

PGIMER Chandigarh who appeared as CW -4, proved on record the

%. Thus, this Court is of the

is awarded under the head of

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER ‘PECUNIARY HEADS’

In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant,

prolonged post-operative care, it is

evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical

necessarily required to undergo regular follow-up and

operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate

compensation under the heads of special diet, conveyance charges and

Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent

hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an

day activities, the compensation awarded under these

heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under

reassessed and enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-, which is

considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the

Amount (in Rs.)

Loss of Income (Rs.39,89,731.2 + Rs. 10,960.8) 40,00,692/-

12

4, proved on record the

%. Thus, this Court is of the

is awarded under the head of

In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant,

operative care, it is

evident that the appellant/claimant is still under continuous medical

up and

operative care. However, the learned Tribunal failed to grant adequate

e charges and

Having regard to the prolonged treatment, frequent

hospital visits, and the need for a special diet and assistance of an

sation awarded under these

heads is found to be inadequate. Accordingly, the compensation under

, which is

considered just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the

In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation in the

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

2. Medical

Hospitalization

3. Compensation under other pecuniary head

4. Compensation under pain and sufferings

Total Compensation

Amount Awarded by

Enhanced Amount

QUESTION REGARDING NEGLIGENCE

14. The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the

consistent testimony

Singh, which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the

production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the

FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the pr

any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record

clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure

prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay

in registration of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise

genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort

of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In

this regard, reference may be made

Supreme Court in

and Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim

petition if the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record.

finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

Medical Expenses//Future medical expenses/

Hospitalization (Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000)

Compensation under other pecuniary head

Compensation under pain and sufferings

Total Compensation

Amount Awarded by the Tribunal

Enhanced Amount

QUESTION REGARDING NEGLIGENCE

The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the

consistent testimony of the claimant as well as the eye

, which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the

production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the

FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the pr

any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record

clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure

prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay

ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise

genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort

of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In

this regard, reference may be made to the judgments of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others

Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim

the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record.

finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus

13

/Future medical expenses/

(Rs. 1,00,000 + Rs. 5,00,000)

6,00,000/-

Compensation under other pecuniary head 5,00,000/-

Compensation under pain and sufferings 10,00,000/-

61,00,692/-

20,50,140/-

40,50,552/-

The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the

of the claimant as well as the eye-witness Surmukh

, which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the

production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the

FIR does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, create

any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record

clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure

prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay

ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise

genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort

of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In

to the judgments of the Hon’ble

Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 SCC 693

Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 5 SCC 656,

wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim

the occurrence of the accident is otherwise proved on record. The

finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus

13

The learned Tribunal has returned a categorical finding with regard to

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle on the basis of the

Surmukh

, which stood duly corroborated by the registration of the FIR and the

production of the relevant criminal record. The mere delay in lodging the

esent case, create

any dent in the case of the claimant, inasmuch as the evidence on record

clearly indicates that the immediate concern of the witnesses was to ensure

prompt medical treatment to the injured. It is by now well settled that delay

ation of the FIR cannot be made a ground to discard an otherwise

genuine claim, particularly in motor accident cases where the primary effort

of the family members and the bystanders is to save the life of the victim. In

to the judgments of the Hon’ble

, (2011) 4 SCC 693

,

wherein it has been held that delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to a claim

The

finding recorded by the learned Tribunal on the issue of negligence is thus

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and

the same does not call for any interferen

15. The grant of interest @ 6

view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

other, reported as

titled as “Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and another,

2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443,

on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of

institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not

paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with

12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today.

Needless to mention here that th

the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.

16. Accordingly, the a

1651-2019, is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the

quantum of compensation as assessed hereina

filed at the instance of the appellant

2018, being devoid of

31.03.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Fatehgarh Sahib

be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in

the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. Th

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and

the same does not call for any interference by this Court.

The grant of interest @ 6% per annum is not equitable and just in

view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

as (2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment

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

2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum

on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of

institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not

paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with

12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today.

Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to

the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the claimant

, is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the

ntum of compensation as assessed hereina

filed at the instance of the appellant–Insurance Company, i.e. FAO

, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

is modified to the extent indicated, and the claimant

be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in

the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. Th

14

based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and

ce by this Court.

% per annum is not equitable and just in

view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Smt.

Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

approved in a subsequent judgment

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

thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum

on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of

institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not

paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with

12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today.

e amount of compensation already paid to

the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.

ppeal preferred by the claimant/injured, i.e. FAO-

, is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the

ntum of compensation as assessed hereinabove, whereas, the appeal

Insurance Company, i.e. FAO-4673-

merit, stands dismissed. The impugned award dated

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

ent indicated, and the claimant shall

be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in

the manner specified in the preceding paragraph. The liability to satisfy the

14

based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence and

% per annum is not equitable and just in

“Smt.

Supe Dei and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and

approved in a subsequent judgment

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

thus, the interest is enhanced to 9% per annum

on the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants from the date of

institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the said amount is not

paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter along with

12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today.

e amount of compensation already paid to

-

, is allowed in the aforesaid terms with the modification in the

the appeal

-

. The impugned award dated

passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

shall

be entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest in

e liability to satisfy the

FAO-4673-2018 (O&M)

& FAO-1651-2019 (O&M)

award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal.

Pending miscellaneous

27.03.2026

sanjay

Whether speaking/reasoned?

Whether Reportable?

2018 (O&M)

2019 (O&M)

award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal.

miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARKESH MANUJA)

Whether speaking/reasoned?

Whether Reportable?

15

award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal.

, if any, shall also stand disposed of.

(HARKESH MANUJA)

JUDGE

Yes/No

Yes/No

15

award shall remain the same as determined by the learned Tribunal.