[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Yash Alias Ashu vs Ajay And Others on 9 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
Reserved on : 02.12.2025
Date of Decision: 09.12.2025
Date of Uploading :09.12.2025
YASH ALIAS ASHU ......Appellant
Vs.
AJAY AND OTHERS ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present : Mr. Ram Pal Verma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Radhe Shyam, Advocate
for respondent No.3.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
03.09.2024 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat
(for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the
appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.17,32,913/- along with interest at the
rate of 7% per annum, on account of injuries sustained by the
appellant/claimant in a Motor Vehicular Accident, occurred on 19.11.2019.
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 are not required to be reproduced for the
sake of brevity.
1 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
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 the respondent-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argued that the award has rightly been
passed and the amount of compensation as assessed by the learned Tribunal
has rightly been granted. Therefore, he pray for dismissal of the appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
whole record of this case with their able assistance.
SETTLED LAW ON COMPENSATION
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law regarding grant of
compensation with respect to the disability. The Apex Court in the case of
Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases
343, has held as under:-
General principles relating to compensation in injury cases
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for
short) makes it clear that the award must be just, which
means that compensation should, to the extent possible,
fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position
prior to the accident. The object of awarding damages is
to make good the loss suffered as a result of wrong done
as far as money can do so, in a fair, reasonable and
equitable manner. The court or tribunal shall have to
assess the damages objectively and exclude from
2 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
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).
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal
longevity).
3 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
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.
(iv) The same permanent disability may result in different
percentages of loss of earning capacity in different
4 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
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 :
a) Annual income prior to the accident : Rs.
36,000/- .
5 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(75% of the prior annual income) : Rs. 27000/-.
c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age : 17
d) Loss of future earnings : (27000 x 17) : Rs.
4,59,000/-
Illustration 'C' : The injured was 25 years and a final
year Engineering student. As a result of the accident, he
was in coma for two months, his right hand was
amputated and vision was affected. The permanent
disablement was assessed as 70%. As the injured was
incapacitated to pursue his chosen career and as he
required the assistance of a servant throughout his life,
the loss of future earning capacity was also assessed as
70%. The calculation of compensation will be as
follows :
a) Minimum annual income he would
have got if had been employed as an
Engineer : Rs. 60,000/-
b) Loss of future earning per annum
(70% of the expected annual income) : Rs. 42000/-
c) Multiplier applicable (25 years) : 18
d) Loss of future earnings : (42000 x 18) : Rs. 7,56,000/-
[Note : The figures adopted in illustrations (A) and (B) are
hypothetical. The figures in Illustration (C) however are based
on actuals taken from the decision in Arvind Kumar Mishra
(supra)].
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance
Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors. [(2017) 16 SCC 680] has clarified
the law relating to Sections 166, 163-A and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, on the following aspects:-
6 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
(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."
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
7 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
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
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:
8 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
"Nature of injury:
(i) compound fracture shaft left humerus
(ii) fracture both bones left forearm
(iii) compound fracture both bones right forearm
(iv) fracture 3rd, 4th & 5th metacarpals right hand
(v) subtrochanteric fracture right femur
(vi) fracture shaft femur
(vii) fracture both bones left leg
We have also perused the photographs annexed to
the petition showing the current physical state of the
appellant, though it is stated by learned counsel for the
respondent State Corporation that the same was not on
record in the trial court. Be that as it may, this is the
position even after treatment and the nature of injuries
itself show their extent. Further, it has been opined in
para 13 of Sandeep Khanuja case (supra) that while
applying the multiplier method, future prospects on
advancement in life and career are also to be taken into
consideration.
We are, thus, unequivocally of the view that there is
merit in the contention of the appellant and the aforesaid
principles with regard to future prospects must also be
applied in the case of the appellant taking the permanent
disability as 31.1%. The quantification of the same on the
basis of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. case
(supra), more specifically para 61(iii), considering the
age of the appellant, would be 50% of the actual salary
in the present case.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate
claimed as 12%
In respect of the aforesaid, the appellant has
watered down the interest rate during the course of
hearing to 9% in view of the judicial pronouncements
including in the Jagdish's case (supra). On this aspect,
once again, there was no serious dispute raised by the
learned counsel for the respondent once the claim was
confined to 9% in line with the interest rates applied by
this Court.
CONCLUSION
8. The result of the aforesaid is that relying on the settled
principles, the calculation of compensation by the
9 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
appellant, as set out in para 5 of the synopsis, would
have to be adopted as follows:
Heads Awarded
Loss of earning power Rs. 9,81,978/-
(Rs.14,648 x 12 x 31.1/100
Future prospects (50 per cent Rs.4,90,989/-
addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
Loss of comfort, loss of Rs.1,50,000/-
amenities and mental agony
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 careful perusal of the award shows that the appellant/claimant
has sustained grievous injuries. Further, appellant/claimant was admitted to
Oscar Multi Specialty Hospital and Trauma Centre hospital, and thereafter,
he was shifted to Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi on 20.11.2019 and was
discharged on 18.12.2019, resulting in a hospitalization period of almost one
month. The fact of hospitalization and the nature and extent of injuries have
been corroborated by the testimony of PW-3 Alic Mashih, Junior Medical
Officer, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Delhi, who deposed that the
appellant/claimant suffered serious injuries. In support of this, medical and
hospitalization expenses have been proved by production of original bills
and receipts marked collectively as Exs.P-2 to P-14. A perusal of award
10 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
reveals that no permanent disability has been suffered by the
appellant/claimant in accident.
10. Accordingly, keeping in view of the severity of the injuries and
the prolonged in-patient treatment, the learned Tribunal has erred in not
awarding just amount for compensation for pain and suffering, attendant
charges, transportation and special diet. Furthermore, no amount is granted
for future medical treatment. Therefore, needs indulgence of this Court.
11. Therefore, in order to advance the cause of justice and to secure
fair adjudication in consonance with the object of the Act, this Court deems
it appropriate to enhance the compensation under the aforesaid heads.
12. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and to secure the
ends of a fair adjudication, this Court deems it appropriate considering the
nature of the injuries of the appellant/claimant, this Court deems it fit to
award Rs.3,00,000/- in lump-sum over and above, in addition to the amount
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
13. 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.
14. The respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount along with interest at the rate of 9% (excluding the period
of delay of 224 days in filing the appeal) with the Tribunal within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The
11 of 12
FAO-4892-2025 (O&M)
Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the appellant-claimant in their
bank accounts. The appellant-claimant is directed to furnish his bank account
details to the Tribunal.
15. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
09.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
