[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Parvin Kumar vs Mustkeem And Others on 18 December, 2025
1
FAO No.1157 of 2025 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO No.
No.1157 of 2025 (O&M)
Reserved on
on: 27.11.2025
Pronounced on: 18.12.2025
Uploaded on
on:18.12.2025
PARVIN KUMAR ......Appellant(s)
Vs
MUSTKEEM AND OTHERS ....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ
MANUJA
Present: Mr. Ashish Yadav, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Nigam K. Bhardwaj,
Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No.3/Insurance
No.3/Insurance Company.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
CM No.3402-CII
CII of 2025
Prayer in the present application moved on behalf of the applicant-
applicant
appellant,, is for condonation of delay of 97 days in filing the appeal.
Notice of the application.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance
Company accepts notice and does not oppose to the prayer made in the application.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the
averments made in the application, which
which is duly supported by an affidavit, the
same is allowed. The delay of 97 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.
[1]. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to an award dated
02.08.2024, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (for
brevity, "the Tribunal"),
Tribunal"), whereby an amount of Rs.
Rs.3,67,125/- was awarded as
compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from
1 of 8
the date of filing of the petition till its actual
actual realization, on account of injuries
suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident.
FACTS
[2]. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned
Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him
in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 19.03.2021 while alleging rash
and negligent driving of vehicle
vehicle bearing registration No.
No.HR-27E-0701
0701 being
driven by respondent No.1/driver.
[3]. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led
by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 02.08.2024, arrived at a
conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1 and awarded
awa Rs.3,67,125/- as compensation
compensation.
[4]. Being aggrieved against the aforesaid award dated 02.08.2024; the
present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of
compensation. Facts as specified in the claim petition and the issue regarding
negligence of the driver been recorded in favour of the appellant/claimant by the
learned Tribunal being not in dispute, therefore, for the sake of brevity, those are
not being repeated here.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT
[5]. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant
contended that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was grossly meager
and disproportionate to the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the
appellant/claimant. It was submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate
the settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court governing the
assessment of just and fair compensation in injury cases. He further argued that the
2 of 8
appellant/claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 6%, thereby
rendering him incapable of performing his daily activities; therefore, the Tribunal
ought to have granted adequate compensation towards future loss of income by
applying appropriate multiplier and taking into consideration the permane
permanent
nt and
incapacitating nature of the disability. Accordingly, he prayed that the
compensation awarded be suitably enhanced in accordance with the settled law so
as to meet the ends of justice.
ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3/
INSURANCE
E COMPANY
COM
[6]. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company
vehemently contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant
was adequately compensated, thus, the present appeal was liable to be dismissed.
DISCUSSION
[7]. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
paper
book of the case as well. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned
Counsel for appellant/claimant.
[8]. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to
draw guidance from the principles laid down in similar cases by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. In "Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors
Ors." reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343
the Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for
personal injuries.
"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.
3 of 8
(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)
Non-pecuniary
(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, the
compensation will granted under
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".
ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
ASSESSMENT UNDER "MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION"
[9]. In the case at hand, the appellant/claimant has sustained permanent
disability assessed at 6% on account of fracture of his right leg with mild restricted
and painful movement
ovement of ankle, duly proved through the disability certificate
exhibited as Ex.P6, as well
well as the testimony of Dr. Panka
Pankajj Aggarwal, Ortho
Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Gurugram, who appeared as PW
PW-3.. Further, as per the
case of appellant/claimant and bill note of Dr. Deepak Yadav, the
appellant/claimant remained hospitalized from 19.03.2021 to 08.04.2021. He also
proved medical receipts Ex.P8 to Ex.P23, Ex.P25 to Ex.P28, which show that the
appellant/claimant
claimant had spent a sum of Rs.1,81,178/
Rs.1,81,178/- on his treatment.
t. Therefore,
4 of 8
keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor vehicular accident
and the treatment besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the
compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The aforesaid view finds
forcee from the fact that due to shock and mental agony on account of accident, a
person cannot be presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for
claim/reimbursement purposes, though, total bills proved are for Rs.1,81,178/
Rs.1,81,178/- yet
in the humble opinion
opinion of this Court, compensation und
under
er this head is assessed as
Rs.2,50,000/-.
ASSESSMENT UNDER "LOSS OF INCOME"
[10]. As per the statement of Shri Mantosh (PW
(PW-2),
), Supervisor, Om Sai
Enterprises, Sector-5
Sector 5 Gurugram, the appellant/claimant was an employee th
there,
ere,
and was getting salary of Rs.12,281/- per month. He further adduced wage slips as
Ex.P2 to Ex.P5 from the period between December 2020 to March 2021. In view
of the aforesaid documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the appellant/claimant was drawing a monthlyy salary of Rs.12,281/
Rs.12,281/- (Rs.409.36
409.36 per
day). Now, as per the case of claimant and discharge certificate Ex.P7, the
appellant/claimant remained in hospital from 19.03.2021 to 08.04.2021 i.e. 20 days
and as such loss of income suffered by him during the said hospitalization
ation period is
assessed as Rs.8,187.2/
8,187.2/- (409.36 x 20).
Further, evidently the motor vehicular accident in the present case
took place on 19.03.2021 and the appellant/claimant must have been bed ridden for
3 months after accident. Thus, it would
would be safe to assume that appellant would
have suffered loss of income for 3 months due to reduced working capacity.
Therefore, after considering facts and circumstances of the present case, loss of
5 of 8
income for the said period is
is conservatively assessed @ Rs.36,842.4/- (409.36 x
90).
Furthermore, though, the appellant/claimant has suffered 6%
permanent disability, it would be just and fair if the future loss of
income/functional disability is assessed @ 3%. Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, in the case of "Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar" reported as 2020
INSC 553 held that in cases where a claimant suffers permanent disability due to a
motor vehicle accident, compensation may be awarded not only for the future loss
of income but also towards future
futur prospects.
[10.1]. A perusal of the record shows that the age of claimant/appellant at the
time of the accident was 36 years. The computation of future prospects is to be
done as per the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in "National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi" reported as (2017) 16
SCC 680 para 59.3, which records the conclusion in this regard, reads as under:-
under:
"59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards
towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The
addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50
years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the
addition should be 15%. Actual salary should read as actual salary less
tax."
[10.2]. In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant in addition to
loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future
prospects @ 40%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding
future prospects be taken
take @ Rs.17,193.4/- per month (12,281/- + 4912.4) for the
purpose of calculation of compensation. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
6 of 8
compensation payable for the functional disability to the extent of 3% is assessed
@ Rs.92,844.36/
92,844.36/- (17,193.4 x 12 x 15 x 3/100).
ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER 'PECUNIARY HEADS'
[11]. Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 3 months as he was
operated upon and would have definitely gone for his post
post-operative
operative care.
However, learned Tribunal failed to grant compensation under the head of special
diet, conveyance charges and attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted
under these heads is reassessed @ Rs.1,00,000/.
Rs.
ASSESSMENT UNDER 'NON PECUNIARY HEADS'
[12]. In the present motor vehicular accident, appellant/claimant suffered
injuries for which he went into the phase of obtaini
obtaining
ng treatment, spanning over a
period of 3 months. In injury cases compensation for mental agony and pain and
suffering cannot be assessed with mathematical certainty and the fact that no
amount of compensation can restore the injured person's physical fram
framee and
eradicate or ameliorate the agony suffered by the injured. Therefore, the
compensation under this head is reassessed as R
Rs.70,000/-.
CONCLUSION
ONCLUSION
[13]. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the
appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant
grant of compensation in the following
manner:-
Sr.No. Nature Amount in Rupees
1. Loss of Income (Rs.8,187.2
8,187.2 + Rs. Rs.1,37,873.96
36,842.4 + Rs. 92,844.36)
2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Rs.2,50,000/-
7 of 8
3 Compensation under other pecuniary Rs.1,00,000/-
head
4. Compensation under non
non-pecuniary Rs.70,000/-
head
5. Total Compensation Rs. 5,57,873.96
6. Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 3,67,125/-
7. Enhanced Amount Rs. 1,90,748.96/--
[14]. The grant of interest @ 6% per annum is not equitable and just in
view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Supe Dei and
others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and other, (2009) (4) SCC 513
approved in a subsequent judgment titled as Puttamma and others Vs. K.L.
Naryana Reddy and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is
enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation awarded to the
claimant from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case the
said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable thereafter
along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from today.
Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to the
claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
[15]. In view of aforesaid modification of the award
award,, the present appeal
stands disposed of.
of Pending miscellaneous application(s) if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
December 18,, 2025
202 JUDGE
Atik
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
