Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kapil Chopra Thru Rekha Rani vs Surjit Singh And Ors on 5 March, 2025
Author: Alka Sarin
Bench: Alka Sarin
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 05.03.2025
KAPIL CHOPRA AND ANR .... Appellants
VERSUS
SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present : Mr. Rakesh Chopra, Advocate and
Mr. Jashan Chopra, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Ishan Cooner, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3.
ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellants
impugning the award dated 06.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal')
whereby an amount of ₹19,87,662 had been awarded in favour of claimant-
appellant No.1 and claim petition qua claimant-appellant No.2 was
dismissed.
2. Since the facts, as recorded in the impugned award passed by
the Tribunal, are not in dispute, the same are not being reproduced herein for
the sake of brevity.
3. At the outset learned counsel for the claimant-appellants states
that he does not wish to press the present appeal qua claimant-appellant
No.2.
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -2-
4. In view thereof, the present appeal is dismissed as not pressed
qua claimant-appellant No.2.
5. The Tribunal in the present case had awarded the following
compensation in favour of claimant-appellant No.1 :
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Annual income ₹1,20,000
2. Multiplier '14' [₹1,20,000 x 14] = ₹16,80,000
3. Medical bills/expenses ₹2,07,662
4. Pain, suffering and trauma ₹50,000
5. Loss of amenities ₹50,000
Total Compensation ₹19,87,662
Interest @ 9% per annum
6. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant No.1 would contend
that claimant-appellant No.1 had suffered serious injuries in the accident in
question rendering him disabled to the extent of 100% and that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the pecuniary and non-
pecuniary heads is on the lower side and is not in accordance with the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar
[(2011) 1 SCC 343]; Jagdish vs. Mohan & Ors. [2018 (2) RCR (Civil)
308] and Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. [2020 (4) RCR
(Civil) 404]. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant No.1 has further relied
upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhimanyu
Partap Singh vs. Namita Sekhon & Anr. [2022 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 557] to
contend that the attendant charges ought to have been granted for life
keeping in view the extent of disability suffered by claimant-appellant No.1
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -3-
herein. Learned counsel has thus prayed for enhancing the compensation on
all the heads.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance
Company has vehemently contended that sufficient amount of compensation
had already been awarded and there is no scope of any further enhancement.
8. Heard.
9. In the present case, Dr. Rajesh Chhabara, Assistant Professor,
Department of Neurosurgery, PGI, Chandigarh and Member of the Board
consisting of Chairman and Convener was examined as CW-1, who testified
that claimant-appellant No.1 herein was aged about 43 years at the time of
accident and due to the accident in question he had suffered 100% disability.
This witness further proved on record the disability certificate of claimant-
appellant No.1 as Ex.C-1. It has further been testified by this witness that the
disability suffered by claimant-appellant No.1 is qua the whole body and is
permanent in nature.
10. In the case of Raj Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had held as under :
"General principles relating to compensation in injury
cases :
5. The provision of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (`the
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
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -4-
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 vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970
Supreme Court 376, R.D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control
(India) Ltd. (1995) 1 SCC 551 and Baker vs.
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, hospitalisation,
medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and
miscellaneous expenditure.
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -5-
(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."
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -6-
Then again in the case of Jagdish (supra) their Lordships of the
Apex Court have held as under :
"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."
In Sri Laxman @ Laxman Mourya v. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2012(1) RCR (Civil) 509: 2011 (12)
SCALE 658] the Court held :
"The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the
victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary
disability, then efforts should always be made to award
adequate compensation not only for the physical injury
and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -7-
trauma caused due to accident, loss of earnings and
victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy
amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the
disability caused due to the accident."
In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.
2013(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 312: (2012)12 SCC 274, this
Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh
Chandra v. Randhir Singh (1990) 3 SCC 723 and B.
Kothandapani v. Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited 2011(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 206 : (2011)
6 SCC 420. The Court held that compensation can be
granted for disability as well as for loss of future
earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a
person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of
pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the
person himself.
In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Company
Limited, 2011(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 817 : (2011) 10 SCC
683, this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R.D.
Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (Pvt) Ltd. (1995) 1
SCC 551, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v.
Prasanth S. Dhananka 2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 174 :
(2009) 6 SCC 1, Reshma Kumari v. Madam Mohan,
2009(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 908 : (2009) 13 SCC 422, Arvind
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -8-
Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Company
Limited, 2010(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 917 : (2010) 10 SCC
254, and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, 2011(2)
R.C.R.(Civil) 101 : (2011) 1 SCC 343 and held thus:
"18. In our view, the principles laid down in
Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.
Ltd. and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar must be
followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts
in determining the quantum of compensation
payable to the victims of accident, who are
disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the
victim of the accident suffers permanent disability,
then efforts should always be made to award
adequate compensation not only for the physical
injury and treatment, but also for the loss of
earning and his inability to lead a normal life and
enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but
for the disability caused due to the accident." (Id at
page 693)"
These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this
Court in Subulaxmi v. MD Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation, 2012(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 945 : Civil Appeal
No. 7750 of 2012, decided on 1 November 2012
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -9-
delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the
learned Chief Justice then was)."
11. The Tribunal in the present case had not made any addition
towards loss of future prospects. The Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case
of Pappu Deo Yadav's case (supra) has held as under :
"12. In view of the above decisive rulings of this court,
the High Court clearly erred in holding that
compensation for loss of future prospects could not be
awarded. In addition to loss of future earnings (based on
a determination of the income at the time of accident),
the appellant is also entitled to compensation for loss of
future prospects, @ 40% (following the Pranay Sethi
principle).
13. The factual narrative discloses that the appellant, a
20-year-old data entry operator (who had studied up to
12th standard) incurred permanent disability, i.e. loss of
his right hand (which was amputated). The disability was
assessed to be 89%. However, the tribunal and the High
Court re-assessed the disability to be only 45%, on the
assumption that the assessment for compensation was to
be on a different basis, as the injury entailed loss of only
one arm. This approach, in the opinion of this court, is
completely mechanical and entirely ignores realities.
Whilst it is true that assessment of injury of one limb or
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -10-
to one part may not entail permanent injury to the whole
body, the inquiry which the court has to conduct is the
resultant loss which the injury entails to the earning or
income generating capacity of the claimant. Thus, loss of
one leg to someone carrying on a vocation such as
driving or something that entails walking or constant
mobility, results in severe income generating impairment
or its extinguishment altogether. Likewise, for one
involved in a job like a carpenter or hairdresser, or
machinist, and an experienced one at that, loss of an
arm, (more so a functional arm) leads to near extinction
of income generation. If the age of the victim is beyond
40, the scope of rehabilitation too diminishes. These
individual factors are of crucial importance which are to
be borne in mind while determining the extent of
permanent disablement, for the purpose of assessment of
loss of earning capacity."
12. Thus, claimant-appellant No.1 is entitled to @ 25% addition
towards loss of future prospects. Since there is no challenge to the income @
₹10,000 per month and the multiplier of '14' as applied by the Tribunal, the
same are accordingly maintained.
13. Vide the impugned award no amount had been awarded by the
Tribunal towards attendant charges. The Supreme Court in the case of
Abhimanyu Partap Singh (supra) had assessed the attendant charges for
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -11-
the injured who was totally confined to bed as ₹5,000 per month for whole
life, calculating the compensation applying a multiplier of '18'. Keeping in
view the nature of the disability and the condition of claimant-appellant
No.1 after the accident, he would require two attendants a day and the
minimum wages prevailing at the time of the accident i.e in the year 2012
were ₹5,200 per month. Hence, claimant-appellant No.1, who is totally
confined to bed, would be entitled to an amount of ₹5,200 per month each
for two attendants i.e. ₹17,47,200 [₹5,200 x 2 x 12 x 14 (multiplier)]
towards attendant charges.
14. The amount of ₹50,000 awarded under the head pain, suffering
and trauma is enhanced to ₹10,00,000. The amount of ₹50,000 awarded
towards loss of amenities is enhanced to ₹2,00,000. The Tribunal had not
awarded any amount towards special diet and transportation charges. This
Court deems it appropriate to award an amount of ₹2,00,000 towards special
diet and ₹1,50,000 towards transportation charges. The Tribunal had not
awarded any amount towards future medical expenses. Keeping in view the
condition and the disability of claimant-appellant No.1, he would require
medical treatment for the rest of his life and therefore this Court deems it
appropriate to award an amount of ₹10,00,000 towards future medical
expenses. The medical expenses of ₹2,07,662 as awarded by the Tribunal are
maintained.
15. Accordingly, the reworked compensation qua claimant-
appellant No.1 is as under :
106 FAO-4365-2017 (O&M) -12-
Sr. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1 Monthly income ₹10,000
2 Annual Income [₹10,000 x 12] = ₹1,20,000
3 Future prospects @ 25% [₹1,20,000 + 30,000] = ₹1,50,000
4 Loss of income after [₹1,50,000 x 14] = ₹21,00,000
applying multiplier '14'
5 Pain and suffering ₹10,00,000
6 Special Diet ₹2,00,000
7 Transportation charges ₹1,50,000
8 Loss of Amenities of life ₹2,00,000
9 Future medical expenses ₹10,00,000
10 Attendant Charges [₹5,200 x 2 x 12 x 14] = ₹17,47,200
11 Medical Bills ₹2,07,662
12 Total Compensation ₹66,04,862
16. The amount in excess of and over and above the amount
awarded by the Tribunal shall also attract interest @ 9% per annum from the
date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the entire amount.
However, claimant-appellant No.1 shall not be entitled to any interest for the
period of delay in filing the present appeal.
17. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award qua the
claimant-appellant No.1 is modified and the appeal qua him stands allowed.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.
05.03.2025 (ALKA SARIN)
Aman Jain JUDGE
NOTE: Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: Yes/No
