[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
National Insurnce Co. Ltd vs Sanjeev Kumar And Ors on 2 December, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
FAO-7077-2016 (O&M) &
XOBJC-117-CII-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 02.12.2025
National Insurance Co. Ltd ... Appellant(s)
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors ... Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Sachin Ohri, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. R.S. Rangpuri, Advocate
for respondent No.1/cross-objector.
ALKA SARIN, J. (Oral)
CM-24333-CII-2016
1. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking
condonation of delay of 53 days in refiling the appeal is allowed and the delay
of 53 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
CM-24332-CII-2016
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the application seeking
condonation of delay of 118 days in filing the appeal is allowed and the delay
of 118 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
FAO-7077-2016 & XOBJC-117-CII-2017
3. The present order shall dispose off the appeal being FAO-7077-
2016 filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and the cross-objections
being XOBJC-117-CII-2017 filed by the injured-claimant challenging the
impugned award dated 21.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
Tribunal, Sri Muktsar Sahib (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). The parties
are being referred to as the Insurance Company, the injured-claimant and
owner and driver.
4. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 05.04.2014 the
injured-claimant alongwith Inderjit Singh @ Pappi, Parmod, Roop Chand,
Mangal Singh, Ramji, Pappu Kabaria, Ram Je, Kala Ram, Gogi @ Surjit
Kumar etc, was going to Mela Buraj Mahima in a Tata Canter 407 bearing
registration No.PB-0F-5198. When they reached near Appna Petrol Pump
near Village Aklian, a Bus bearing registration No.PB-02-AZ-6895
(hereinafter referred to as 'offending Bus') being driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner and at a very high speed, came from behind and made
a cut while crossing the Canter. As a result, the Tata Canter went uncontrolled
and scrolled down on the road. The driver of the offending bus ran away from
the spot. All the persons travelling in Tata Canter sustained injuries. FIR
No.31 dated 05.04.2013 was registered at Police Station Nehianwala, District
Bathinda.
5. On notice the driver and owner of the offending bus filed the
written statement denying the accident having taken place. The Insurance
Company had also filed its separate written statement raising preliminary
objections qua the maintainability of the claim petition. It was further averred
that the driver of the offending bus was not holding a valid and effective
driving licence at the time of the accident. The factum of the accident was also
denied.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues
were framed :
1. Whether claimant received injuries in motor
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
vehicular accident on 05.04.2013 at about 4 PM near
Appna Petrol Pump of Village Aklian due to rash and
negligent driving of respondent No.1 Harpal Singh driver
of Bus No.PB-02-AZ-6895 ? OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation on
account of injuries received by him? If so, to what amount
and from whom ? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.1/driver of the offending
vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence
at the time of accident ? OPR-3
4. Relief.
7. The Tribunal, while holding that the offending bus was being
driven in a rash and negligent manner and causing the accident, had awarded
the following compensation :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Monthly Income ₹10,000/-
2. Loss of income on account of ₹3,000/-
30% permanent disability
3. Loss of earning by applying ₹4,68,000/- [₹3,000 x 12 x 13]
multiplier of 13
4. Loss of earning for the period of ₹15,000/-
hospitalization
5. Attendant charges ₹10,000/-
6. Special Diet ₹15,000/-
7. Medical expenses ₹75,303/-
8. Transport charges ₹10,000/-
Total Compensation ₹5,93,303/-
Interest 7% per annum
8. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has filed the
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
appeal FAO-7077-2016 on the ground that the offending bus while making a
cut did not touch the Tata Canter and it was the Canter which was being driven
in a rash and negligent manner. Cross-objections being XOBJC-117-CII-
2017 have also been filed the injured-claimant for enhancement of
compensation.
FAO-7077-2016
9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that
the offending bus was being driven by the driver at a proper speed and it was
the Canter which was coming from behind which hit the offending bus while
it was making a cut hence it could not have been held that the offending bus
was being driven in a rash and negligent manner.
10. Per contra learned counsel for the injured-claimant has
contended that the offending bus, which was being driven at a high speed,
overtook the Canter and suddenly made a cut while crossing the Canter, thus,
resulting in the accident. The driver of the Canter could not control the vehicle
and the same rolled down the road.
11. Heard.
12. The only argument raised by the learned counsel for the
Insurance Company is that the offending bus was not being driven in a rash
and negligent manner. However, the finding of the Tribunal is to the contrary
that the offending bus while overtaking the Canter suddenly made a cut while
crossing the Canter. The evidence on the record is overwhelming. The driver
of the offending bus who could have been the best person to depose did not
step into the witness box. It is expected that a vehicle while overtaking would
overtake in a safe manner and cannot make a sudden cut resulting in the
vehicle which was being overtaking to lose its control. In view thereof, the
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company stands rejected.
XOBJC-117-CII-2017
13. Learned counsel for the injured-claimant would contend that
though the income of the injured-claimant as well as the permanent disability
@ 30% has rightly been assessed and a multiplier method has correctly been
applied, however, no amount has been awarded towards loss of future
prospects, which ought to have been 25% keeping in view the age of the
injured-claimant as 46 years. It is further the contention that no amount has
been awarded under the heads 'pain and suffering' and loss of amenities of
life and that the amount awarded under the other heads i.e. special diet,
attendant charges and transportation are on the lower side. Learned counsel
for the injured claimant has relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020
(4) RCR (Civil) 404].
14. Per contra learned counsel for the Insurance Company has
contended that sufficient amount has already been awarded as compensation
and no further enhancement is called for.
15. Heard.
16. In the present case, since there is no dispute so far as the income
of the injured-claimant, permanent disability and the multiplier method
applied thereto by the Tribunal, the same are accordingly maintained. Though
the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier method so far as loss of income
is concerned, however, no addition has been made towards future prospects
which ought to have been made @ 25% in view of the law laid down in case
of Pappu Deo (supra). Thus, the injured-claimant is also entitled to addition
of 25% towards future prospects.
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
17. In the present case, no amount has been awarded towards pain
and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Due to the accident, the injured-
claimant sustained injuries and he remained admitted in Guru Gobind Singh
Medical College and Hospital, Faridkot for a period of 40 days i.e. from
05.04.2013 to 01.05.2013 and then from 12.02.2014 to 26.02.2014. As per
the Disability Certificate (Ex.A4), the diagnosis of the injured-claimant is
Arthrodesis (Rt.) Ankle with O/c # Calcaneus (L) Foot with # injury Pubic
Rami Lt. Side. Keeping in view the permanent disability of the injured-
claimant and the period of hospitalization, this Court deems it appropriate to
award an amount of ₹1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and an amount of
₹1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities of life. Further the amounts awarded
under the other heads i.e. special diet, attendant charges and transportation, in
the opinion of this Court, are on the lower side and the same are enhanced to
₹25,000/- towards special diet, ₹20,000/- towards attendant charges and
₹20,000/- towards transportation charges. The amounts awarded towards loss
of income during the period of hospitalization and medical expenses are
maintained. Accordingly, the reworked compensation is as under :
Sr.No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Loss of future earnings on ₹4,68,000/-
account of permanent
disability as assessed by the
Tribunal
2 Future prospects @ 25% [₹4,68,000 + 1,17,000] = ₹5,85,000/-
3 Pain and suffering ₹1,50,000/-
4 Loss of amenities of life ₹1,50,000/-
5 Special Diet ₹25,000/-
6 Attendant charges ₹20,000/-
7 Transportation charges ₹20,000/-
8 Loss of earning for the period ₹15,000/-
of hospitalization
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
9 Medical expenses ₹75,303/-
Total Compensation ₹10,40,303/-
18. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount awarded
by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
19. In view of the decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Parminder Singh vs. Honey Goyal & Ors. [AIR 2025 SC 1713], after
calculation of the enhanced amount, the same be transferred by the Insurance
Company in the bank account of the claimant within six weeks from today.
The particulars of the bank account alongwith the requisite documents(s) in
support thereof shall be furnished by the claimant to the Insurance company
within a period of two weeks from the date of this order and needful shall be
done by the Insurance Company after verification thereof within four weeks
thereafter alongwith up-to-date interest. The compliance shall be reported by
the Bank to the Tribunal concerned.
20. In view of the above discussion, the appeal being FAO-7077-
2016 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross-objections
being XOBJC-117-CII-2017 filed by the injured-claimant are allowed and
the award passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
02.12.2025 ( ALKA SARIN )
Yogesh Sharma JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
YOGESH SHARMA
2025.12.03 09:55
I am the author of this document
Chandigarh
