FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-389-2022 (O&M)

Reserved on : 05.12.2025

Date of Decision: 11.12.2025

Date of Uploading : 13.12.2025

Vijay Kumar ......Appellant

Vs.

M/s New Guru Kansi Transport Company and others......Respondents

CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:Mr. Balbir Singh Jaswal, Advocate,

for the appellant.

Mr. Gopal Mittal, Advocate, for

Mr. Kamal Sharma, Advocate,

for respondent No.4-Insurance Company.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. (ORAL)

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

03.09.2021 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor

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

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

appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.26,79,574/- along with interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the

appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 19.08.2015.

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

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

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

the sake of brevity.

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -2-

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the

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

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

allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be

enhanced, as per latest law.

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

Company, however, vehemently argues that the award has rightly been

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

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

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

whole record of this case with their able assistance.

SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION

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

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

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

343, has held as under:-

General principles relating to compensation in injury cases

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

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

means that compensation should, to the extent possible,

fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position

prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is

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

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

equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -3-

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. Non-pecuniary damages

(General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a

consequence of the injuries.

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

marriage).

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -4-

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

longevity).

In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be

awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in

serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical

evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that

compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)

(b), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on

account of permanent disability, future medical expenses,

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

and loss of expectation of life.

xxx xxx xxx xxx

19. We may now summarise the principles discussed

above :

(i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from

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

(ii) The percentage of permanent disability with reference

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

the percentage of loss of earning capacity. To put it

differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is

not the same as the percentage of permanent disability

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

evidence, concludes that percentage of loss of earning

capacity is the same as percentage of permanent

disability).

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

examined him subsequently to assess the extent of his

permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the

extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning

capacity is something that will have to be assessed by the

Tribunal with reference to the evidence in entirety.

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -5-

(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different

percentages of loss of earning capacity in different

persons, depending upon the nature of profession,

occupation or job, age, education and other factors.

20. The assessment of loss of future earnings is

explained below with reference to the following

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

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

accident. As per Doctor's evidence, the permanent

disability of the limb as a consequence of the injury was

60% and the consequential permanent disability to the

person was quantified at 30%. The loss of earning

capacity is however assessed by the Tribunal as 15% on

the basis of evidence, because the claimant is continued

in employment, but in a lower grade. Calculation of

compensation will be as follows:

a) Annual income before the accident : Rs.

36,000/-.

b) Loss of future earning per annum

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

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

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

91,800/-

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

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

his permanent disability is assessed at 60%. He was

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

chances of getting any other employment was bleak and

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

pittance. The Tribunal therefore assessed his loss of

future earning capacity as 75%. Calculation of

compensation will be as follows :

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -6-

a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs.

36,000/- .

b) Loss of future earning per annum

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

c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17

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

4,59,000/-

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

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

was in coma for two months, his right hand was

amputated and vision was affected. The permanent

disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was

incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he

required the assistance of a servant throughout his life,

the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as

70%. The calculation of compensation will be as

follows :

a) Minimum annual income he would

have got if had been employed as an

Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-

b) Loss of future earning per annum

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

c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18

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

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

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

on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra

(supra)].

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

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

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -7-

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 fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think

that it would be condign that the amount that we have

quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in

every three years and the enhancement should be at the

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

hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect

of those heads.”

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -8-

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

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

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

examined by us:

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

The aforesaid increase of multiplier is sought on the

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

judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v.

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

46 of the said judgment, the Constitution Bench

effectively affirmed the multiplier method to be used as

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

and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another,

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

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

extent of disability.

The aforesaid position is not really disputed by learned

counsel for the respondent State Corporation and, thus,

we come to the conclusion that the multiplier to be

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

'17'.

(b) Loss of earning capacity of the appellant with

permanent disability of 31.1%

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

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -9-

victim who suffers a permanent or temporary

disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to

the award of compensation. The award of

compensation must cover among others, the

following aspects:

(i)Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from

the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

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

life together with its amenities;

(iv)Medical expenses including those that the

victim may be required to undertake in

future; and

(v)Loss of expectation of life."

[emphasis supplied]

The aforesaid principle has also been emphasized

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

(supra) opining that the multiplier method was logically

sound and legally well established to quantify the loss of

income as a result of death or permanent disability

suffered in an accident.

In the factual contours of the present case, if we

examine the disability certificate, it shows the

admission/hospitalization on 8 occasions for various

number of days over 1½ years from August 2011 to

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

under:

"Nature of injury:

(i)compound fracture shaft left humerus

(ii)fracture both bones left forearm

(iii)compound fracture both bones right forearm

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

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -10-

(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

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -11-

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

this Court.

CONCLUSION

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

principles, the calculation of compensation by the

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

have to be adopted as follows:

Heads Awarded

Loss of earning power

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

Rs. 9,81,978/-

Future prospects (50 per cent

addition)

Rs.4,90,989/-

Medical expenses including

transport charges,

nourishment, etc.

Rs.18,46,864/-

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

Loss of comfort, loss of

amenities and mental agony

Rs.1,50,000/-

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

Total Rs.41,69,831/-

The appellant would, thus, be entitled to the

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

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

application till the date of payment.

9. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant/claimant was a

student of 10+2 and he is 18 years old at the time of accident. The learned

Tribunal, however, fell in error in assessing his income as Rs.6,000/- per

month by taking into consideration minimum wages for casual labour

prevailed in the State of Haryana at the time of accident.

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -12-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vehicles Act, 1988.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

worker is the just and reasonable benchmark.

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

income of the appellant/claimant, is accordingly assessed at Rs.9,000/-,

being the minimum wages of a skilled worker as notified for the relevant

period in the State of Haryana.

13. A perusal of the award further reveals that appellant/claimant

has suffered 65% permanent disability due to accident and his both legs have

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -13-

been amputated practically rendering the appellant/claimant 100% functional

disabled. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the functional

disability of the appellant/claimant as 100% and the same is in consonance

with the judgment rendered by Ho’ble the Supreme Court in Anoop

Maheshwari vs Oriental insurance company Ltd. and others, 2025 INSC

1076, wherein it has been held that while determining compensation under

the motor vehicle act, the assessment of disability must be made with

reference to the functional disability, namely, the extent to which injuries

sustained have impaired the earning capacity of the appellant/claimant,

rather than being confined to the percentage of medical disability as certified

by the medical board. The relevant extracts of the same is reproduced as

under:-

“7. Insofar as the disability is concerned, we have no

doubt that the medical board's certificate can be

accepted, even without a witness being examined. The

disability certificate also indicates that the amputation

suffered by the petitioner is of hemipelvectomy; which is

the amputation of one leg and a portion of the pelvic

bone on the same side. The disability to be assessed for

the purpose of awarding compensation arising from a

motor accident is the functional disability which reduces

the earning capacity of the claimant and not strictly the

medical disability. In the present case, admittedly the

claimant was running a business, and the claimant has

already been fitted with a prosthetic limb to ensure his

mobility. In the above circumstances, the order of the

High Court holding the disability to be 50% for the

purpose of computing loss of income as relatable to the

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -14-

loss of earning capacity is correct and within the

parameters to be considered for assessing the loss of

income arising from a motor accident which led to

disability of the victim. The disability assessed at 50% is

the functional disability and it is quite reasonable.

8. As far as the income is concerned, we agree with

the High Court that the Tribunal had entered into mere

surmises and conjectures to decline adoption of the

income as per the income tax returns. In this context, we

have to notice that the registration of the firm of the

claimant took place on 06.03.2006 and the income tax

returns produced are also for the assessment years 2005-

2006 and 2006-2007 relatable to the financial years

2004-2005 and 2005-2006 which are prior to the

accident which occurred on 09.04.2007. It cannot be said

that the claimant apprehended an accident and got

registration of a firm and filed his income tax returns two

years prior to the accident. Further, the claimant had

also produced sales tax returns which was also rejected

by the Tribunal on the ground that there was no taxable

profits in the said year. Insofar as the levy of sales tax is

concerned, the levy is on the sales and not on the profits.

The finding of the Tribunal also is that in the first year,

there was no tax payable and hence there was no profits

or income. The exemption from tax is only because the

purchase and sales did not exceed the taxable value. The

sale proceeds being not within the taxable limit is not an

indication of the profit accrued, or the income received

from the business which is reflected in the income tax

returns. On the above reasoning, we have to accept the

income tax returns for the financial year 2007-2008 in

which the total gross income is seen as Rs.1,96,000/- out

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -15-

of which the tax of Rs.4,641/- has to be deducted. The

income, hence, has to be assessed at Rs.1,91,000/-. In

assessing the loss of income, the multiplier of 18 is

perfectly in order and the disability is 50% as determined

by the High Court.”

Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal qua assessment of

functional disability to the tune of 100% is hereby affirmed.

14. A perusal of the award reveals that learned Tribunal has not

awarded any amount of compensation under the head of “Pain and

Sufferings”. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Muralidhar v. R.

Subbulakshmi and another 2024 SCC Online SC 3385, has settled the law

regarding grant of compensation under the head of “Pain and Suffering”.

The relevant portion of the K.S.Muralidhar’s case is reproduced as under:-

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

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

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

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

of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award

Rs.15,00,000/- under the head ‘pain and suffering’, fully

conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant-appellant

for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of

Rs.10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and

reasonable at the amount so awarded.”

Therefore, in view of the judgment referred to above and the

nature of injuries; the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court,

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

Rs.10,00,000/- under the head of ‘Pain and Sufferings’.

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -16-

15. A perusal of the award further shows that a meager amount of

compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal towards special diet,

attendant charges and marriage prospects. Moreover, no amount has been

awarded under the heads of loss of amenities, transportation, medical

expenses for future treatment. Therefore, the award requires indulgence of

this Court.

RELIEF

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

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

dated 03.09.2021 passed by the learned Tribunal is modified accordingly.

The appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation as per the

calculations made here-under:-

Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded

1Monthly Income Rs.9,000/-

2Loss of future prospects (40%)Rs.3,600/- (40% of Rs.9,000/-)

3Annual Income Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.12,600 X 12)

4Loss of earning due to disability

(100%)

Rs.1,51,200/- (100% of

Rs.1,51,200)

5Multiplier 18

6Loss of future earning per annumRs.27,21,600/- (Rs.1,51,200 X

18)

7Medical Expenses Rs.6,20,174/-

8Pain and Suffering Rs.10,00,000/-

9Special Diet Rs.70,000/-

10Transportation charges Rs.50,000/-

11Attendant Charges Rs.2,00,000/-

12Medical Expenses for future

treatment

Rs.3,50,000/-

FAO-389-2022 (O&M) -17-

13Loss of amenities of life Rs.2,00,000/-

14Loss of marriage prospects Rs.6,00,000/-

Total Compensation Rs.58,11,774/-

DEDUCTION

Compensation awarded by the

Tribunal

Rs.26,79,574/-

Enhanced Compensation Rs.31,32,200/-

(Rs.58,11,774 – 26,79,574)

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

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

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

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

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

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

18. Respondent No.4-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal

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

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

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

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

Tribunal.

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

(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)

JUDGE

11.12.2025

Virender

Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking

Whether reportable : Yes/No