[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gajinder Singh vs Dalwinder Singh And Anr on 12 December, 2025
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
-1-
FAO-5477-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-5477-2019 (O&M)
Reserved on: 10.12.2025
Date of decision: 12.12.2025
Uploaded on: 12.12.2025
GAJINDER SINGH ......Appellant
Vs.
DALWINDER SINGH AND ORS. ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr. Vinod K. Kataria, Advocate
for the appellant.
None for respondent No.1 (despite service).
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate
for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
29.11.2018 passed in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short '1988 Act'), by the learned Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Mohali (in short 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation,
granted to the appellant/claimant to the tune of Rs.2,26,900/- along with interest
@ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant -
Gajinder Singh in a motor vehicular accident, occurred on 24.11.2015.
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 required to be reproduced and is skipped herein for the
sake of brevity.
1 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS 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 No.2-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that
the amount of compensation as assessed by Ld. Tribunal, has rightly been granted
to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present 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 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
2 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
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).
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 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
3 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
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/- .
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 under
4 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
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."
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
5 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
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:
"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
6 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
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 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 perusal of the impugned award reveals that the appellant/claimant
was 32 years of age at the time of the accident and was stated to be running a
milk-dairy business, earning approximately ₹50,000 per month. It was further
asserted that due to the injuries sustained, the said business had to be
7 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
discontinued. In support of his claim, the appellant examined PW-2 Mihan Singh,
who categorically deposed before the Tribunal that the appellant, Gajinder Singh,
along with one Swaran Singh, had been jointly operating a milk dairy at Village
Sia from 03.04.2015 to 25.11.2015. According to PW-2, they maintained around
25 buffaloes and 5 cows, and the appellant was earning about ₹90,000 per month
from the dairy business, out of which approximately ₹40,000 constituted
expenditure, leaving a net earning. PW-2 further testified that the petitioner and
Gajinder Singh used to sell around 150 kg of milk per day at the rate of ₹40 per kg
and that subsequently all the buffaloes and cows were sold to him.
10. Despite this clear and consistent testimony, the learned Tribunal
chose to discard the evidence of PW-2 solely on the premise that neither PW-1 nor
PW-2 had produced documentary proof demonstrating ownership of cattle,
availability of fodder, or any records regarding the sale of milk to the general
public or vendors. On this basis, the Tribunal proceeded to assess the monthly
income of the appellant at a meagre ₹7,000 by resorting to the minimum-wage
notification.
11. This Court is conscious of the socio-economic realities prevailing in
rural India. It is a matter of common knowledge that agricultural and allied
activities, including small-scale dairy farming, operate largely within the
unorganised sector, where maintenance of formal documentary records is rare.
The strict insistence on documentary proof, to the exclusion of credible oral
evidence, therefore does not comport with the practical functioning of such
occupations. In this backdrop, the rejection of the unimpeached and categorical
testimony of PW-2 by the Tribunal appears to be based on an erroneous and overly
rigid approach, rather than on any inherent infirmity in the evidence.
8 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
12. In view of the consistent depositions of PW-1 and PW-2, and bearing
in mind the settled principle that the determination of income in motor accident
claims must be realistic and not hyper-technical, this Court finds it appropriate, in
the interest of justice, to reassess the monthly income of the appellant.
Accordingly, the monthly income is fairly determined at ₹15,000/- for the purpose
of computation of compensation, so as to advance the cause of justice.
13. Upon a perusal of the impugned award, it emerges that the
claimant/appellant suffered grievous injuries in the accident in question. The
medical evidence on record, particularly the testimony of Dr. Sanjiv Kamboj
(PW-4), establishes that the claimant sustained fractures in the right elbow and
right tibia. PW-4 has further opined that, as a consequence of the said injuries, the
claimant is incapable of driving a vehicle and that the resulting disability has a
deleterious impact on his normal physical functioning and working capacity.
14. Notwithstanding the aforesaid unambiguous medical testimony, the
learned Tribunal has assessed the functional disability of the claimant at 10%
without assigning any cogent or legally sustainable reasons. The omission to
consider the medical evidence in its proper perspective, in the opinion of this
Court, constitutes an error apparent in the determination of functional disability,
thereby affecting the computation of just and fair compensation.
15. In the circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to reassess the
functional disability for the purpose of determining compensation. Having regard
to the nature of injuries, their impact on the claimant's functional capacity, and the
unequivocal testimony of PW-4, this Court deems it fit and proper, in the interest
of justice, to quantify the functional disability of the appellant/claimant at 20%.
9 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
16. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has
awarded the compensation on the lower side to the claimant under the heads of
Pain and suffering, which is required to be enhanced.
17. It is trite that permanent disability suffered by an individual not only
impairs his cognitive abilities and his physical facilities, but there are multiple
non-quantifiable implications for the victim. Further, the very fact that healthy
person turns into invalid being deprived of normal companionship and incapable
of leading a productive life makes one suffer loss of dignity. As per the facts of the
case the claimant suffered grievous injuries from the accident in question vide
which his right leg between thigh and knee was fractured and he also received
injuries on other parts of his body. For proving the same, Dr. Jyoti was examined,
wherein, she deposed that the claimant/appellant suffered a fractured femur of the
right side. This fairly concludes the fact that the claimant has suffered immense
amount of pain and agony due to the accident in question.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KS Muralidhar versus R
Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but
devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduce 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
10 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just,
fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."
19. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of One Lakh under the heads of pain and suffering.
20. A further perusal of the award reveals that meager amount is granted
by the learned Tribunal under the heads of transportation, special diet, loss of
amenities of life, attendant charges and medical expenses for future treatment.
Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this Court.
RELIEF
21. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
29.11.2018 is modified. Accordingly, as per the settled principles of law as laid
down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, the appellant-claimant is
held entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation as calculated below:-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Income Rs.15,000/-
2 Loss of future prospects (40%) Rs.6,000/-
(40% of Rs.15,000/-)
3 Annual Income Rs.2,52,000/-
(Rs.21,000/- X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.50,400/-
account of 20% disability (Rs.2,52,000/- X 20%)
5 Multiplier of 16 Rs.8,06,400/-
(Rs.50,400/-X 16)
7 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
8 Attendant Charges Rs.10,000/-
9 Transportation Charges Rs.20,000/-
10 Loss of amenities of life Rs.50,000/-
11 Medical expenses Rs.59,500/-
12 Medical expenses for future Rs.20,000/-
treatment
11 of 12
FAO-5477-2019
13 Special Diet Rs.30,000/-
14 Total compensation Rs.10,95,900/-
awarded:-
15 Deduction:- Rs.2,26,900/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
16 Enhanced amount of Rs.8,69,000/-
compensation (10,95,900- 2,26,900)
22. 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 Nandu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the amount so calculated shall carry an interest @ 9%
per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of realization.
23. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount 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 directed
to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along with interest to the
appellant-claimant.
24. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
12.12.2025 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
Ayub JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
12 of 12
