[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahmati vs Mouj Khan And Ors on 9 December, 2025
FAO-5199
5199-2018 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
258 FAO-5199-2018 (O&M)
Date of Decision:09.12.2025
Rahmati ....Appellant
Versus
Mouj Khan and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. DK Prajapati, Advocate
Insurance Co.
for respondent No. 3-Insurance
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
1. The injured-claimant/appellant
/appellant has filed the present appeal
seeking enhancement of the compensation amount of ₹10,83,464/-
awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh (for short-
'the learned Tribunal) vide Award dated 12.04.2017, passed in MACT
Petition No. 1495 of 2016 dated 11.07.2016 filed under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the learned Tribunal on the
basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that
appellant had suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident that took
place on 05.06.2016 at around 10:00 A.M. due to rash and negligent
driving of vehicle bearing registration No. HR-74-A-3665 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the offending vehicle') by respondent No.
No.1-Mouj Khan;;
owned by respondent No. 2-Kabir Khan; and insured by respondent No.
3-Insurance
Insurance Company. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above
along with interest @ 7.5%
% per annum from the date of filing the claim
1 of 5
FAO-5199
5199-2018 (O&M) -2-
petition till actual realization. Respondents No. 1 to 3 w
were
ere held liable to
pay the amount of compensation jointly and severally.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks enhancement of
compensation by submitting that in the accident in question, the appellant
has been rendered 85% disabled as per Disability Certificate (Ex. P-1)..
The disability of the appellant has been proved on record by evidence of
PW-2 Dr. Naseem Ahmed.
Ahmed. Learned counsel submits that due to the
injuries suffered by the appellant in the accident in question, the appellant
had to undergo above
above knee amputation of left lower limb
limb;; and is therefore
unable to do her normal work or pursue her previous avocation of
tailoring. It is contended that in these circumstances, the compensation of
₹10,83,464/
10,83,464/- awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side.
4. Further, learned counsel submits that income of the appellant
had been taken on lower side as ₹7600/- per month
month.. It is submitted that it
was the clear case of the appellant
appellan that she was a housewife and was also
working as a Tailor. No evidence in rebut
rebuttal was adduced by the
he
respondent(s) in this regard. Thus,
Thus, income of the appellant ought to have
been taken as that of a Skilled Worker as ₹9233/- per month in terms of
Notification dated 05.04.2016 applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016, issued by the
Labour Department,
Depart Haryana. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has not
awarded anything towards future prospects. Even less amounts have been
awarded under the Heads of Attendant Charges, Transportation, Special
Diet, Medical Expenses etc. Even nothing has been awarded towards
future medical expenses and follow-up
follow up check
check-ups.
2 of 5
FAO-5199
5199-2018 (O&M) -3-
5. In support, learned counsel relies upon judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Rajpoot
ot vs. Ram Singh and others,
Law Finder Doc Id # 2693665, wherein the injured
injured-claimant
claimant therein had
suffered 90% disability; and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded
enhanced compensation [enhancing
enhancing the compensation of ₹6,70,000/-
(awarded by the learned MACT)
M and ₹10,10,004/
10,10,004/- (awarded by the High
Court)to ₹28,93,494/
28,93,494/-], by awarding ₹1,08,000/
1,08,000/- for Attendant Charges;
₹2,00,000/-- for Loss of Marriage Prospect; ₹1,00,000/- for Special Diet
and Transportation; ₹3,00,000/- for Pain and Suffering; and ₹5,00,000/-
for Assistant Device. It is, accordingly, prayed that the present appeal be
allowed and the compensation may be enhanced in the above terms.
6. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 33-Insurance
Insurance
Company vehemently opposes the submission
submissions advanced by ld. counsel
for the appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of the
present case just and fair compensation has been awarded to the appellant.
Accordingly, learned counsel prays for dismissal of the present appeal.
7. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties.
8. I have heard learned counsel and perused the case file in
detail.
9. I find merit in the arguments advanced on behalf of learned
counsel for the appellant/injured-claimant.
appellant claimant. Perusal of the record off the
case shows that in the accident in question, the appellant had to undergo
above knee amputation of left lower limb with fracture of both bones of
right leg with fracture of distal end of left radius with mild restriction of
movement at left wrist joint. The appellant had also suffered 85%
3 of 5
FAO-5199
5199-2018 (O&M) -4-
permanent disability as established
e from the Disability Certificate Ex. P
P-1;;
which was proved from the evidence of PW
PW-2 Dr. Naseem Ahmed.
10. Further, appellant in her affidavit Ex. PW
PW-3/A had stated that
she is a housewife was also doing work of Tailor. It is to be noted that the
respondent counsel put no suggestion to controvert the assertion of the
appellant that she was not doing work of Tailor before the accident. As
such, it is my view that income of the injured
injured-claimant/appellant should
be taken as that of a Skilled Worker; which
which, as per Notification dated
05.04.2016 applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2016 is ₹9233/- per month rounded off
to ₹9235/-..
11. Further, ld. Tribunal has made no addition towards future
prospects. Age of the appellant was determined to be 48 years on date of
accident
cident on the basis of the Disability Certificate Ex. P
P-1.. As such the
appellant was entitled to addition of 25% towards future prospects. The
learned Tribunal has also awarded meager amount of ₹5000/- towards
Special Diiet; ₹5000/- towards transportation charges
charges; and ₹5703.32/-
towards Treatment
T Expenses; and only ₹50,000/- towards Pain and
Suffering. In terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sanjay
Rajpoot (supra) (relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant),, the
said amounts are also liable to the enhanced. Accordingly, the
compensation awarded to the appellant is re
re-assessed as under:-
Details Before the Revised compensation
Tribunal
Income ₹7,600/- per ₹9,235/- per month
month (rounded off)
Future Prospects NIL 25% ₹2308.75/-
(monthly income comes to
9235+2308.75=11543.75)
4 of 5
FAO-5199
5199-2018 (O&M) -5-
Yearly income ₹7600x12= ₹11543.75x12=₹1,38,525/-
₹91,200/-
Permanent Disability ₹10,07,760/- ₹11543.75x12x13=₹18,00,
(85% permanent 825/-
Disability) [₹15,30,701.25 85% of
₹18,00,825/-]
Medical Expenses ₹5703.32/- ₹5703.32/-
Attendant charges ₹10,000/- ₹6000/- x 12= ₹72,000/-
Special Diet and ₹5,000/- ₹20,000/-
Transportation ₹5,000/-
Charges Total
₹10, 000/-
Pain and Suffering ₹50,000/- ₹2,00,000/-
Total compensation ₹10,83,464/- ₹18,28,404.57/-
Interest 7.5% per 6%
annum
12. In view of the discussion above, the present appeal is
allowed in the above terms.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
09.12.2025 ( NIDHI GUPTA )
rishu JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
