Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karampreet Kaur vs Kulwant Singh And Others on 11 November, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
108 FAO-3033-2019 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 11.11.2025
Karampreet Kaur ....Appellant
V/s
Kulwant Singh and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Sanjeev Goyal, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr. Ram Avtar Singh, Advocate, for
respondent No.3-Insurance Co.
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL)
The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant
(Karampreet Kaur) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded vide
Award dated 02.08.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Sangrur (for short 'MACT').
2. The facts, as emanating from the paper book, are that the
appellant instituted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') seeking compensation of Rs.10 lakhs on
account of injuries and permanent disability suffered by the appellant in a
motor vehicular accident which took place on 30.10.2017.
2.1 The case of the appellant was that on 30.10.2017, she along
with her sister was going to Village Faridpur Khurd on her Activa scooter,
which was being driven by her at a normal speed. Her sister was the pillion
rider. One Jarnail Singh was following them on his motorcycle. At about
10.45 a.m., when they reached near the motor of Balvir Singh, a bus bearing
Regn. No.PB-13T-9465 (hereinafter referred to as the "offending vehicle")
driven by respondent No.1 (Kulwant Singh) in a rash and negligent manner
and at a high speed came from the opposite side and struck into the scooter
1 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -2-
of the appellant. Both the occupants fell on the road. The appellant suffered
multiple grievous injuries on her person whereas, her sister miraculously
escaped. The appellant was taken to Civil Hospital, Malerkotla, from where,
she was referred to Dayanand Medical College, Ludhiana (hereinafter
referred to as the "DMC").
2.2 On the statement of Jarnail Singh, FIR No.108, dated
31.10.2017 was lodged at Police Station Sandaur against respondent No.1.
It was averred that the accident had taken place on account of the rash and
negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1.
2.3 It was averred that at the time of the accident, the appellant was
22 years old and was pursuing M.Sc. at GSG Khalsa College, Sadhar
Malerkotla. She was doing household work and was also giving tuitions to
students up to 10th Standard and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. It was
averred that she remained admitted in DMC, Ludhiana from 30.10.2017 to
07.11.2017 and thereafter, took follow up treatment regularly. Accordingly,
a sum of Rs.10 lakhs was claimed as compensation.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending
vehicle) filed a joint written statement. The factum of the accident was
denied, though the ownership of the offending vehicle was admitted. It was
averred that a false FIR was got registered against respondent No.1. It was
also averred that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3
and respondent No.1 was having a valid driving license at the time of the
accident.
3.2 Respondent No.3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd.) filed
its separate written statement raising usual defences. The factum of the
accident was denied. It was denied that the claimant had suffered any
2 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -3-
permanent disability. It was also denied that Jarnail Singh was present at the
time of the accident.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether claimant Karampreet Kaur daughter of Harkeerat
Singh sustained multiple severe injuries in a motor vehicular accident
which took place on 30.10.2017 due to rash and negligent driving of
vehicle i.e. Bus bearing registration No.PB-13T-9465 which was being
driven by respondent No.1 Kulwant Singh?OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for,
if so to what extent and from whom?OPP
3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable in the present
form?OPR
4. Relief."
5. Parties led their respective evidence.
6. On issue No.1, it was held that the accident had been caused on
account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by
respondent No.1.
6.2 On issue No.2, i.e. the quantum of compensation, the MACT
awarded the following compensation:-
Compensation on account of loss of Rs.8000/-
income during the period claimant
remained injured/indisposed for 20 days
Compensation on account of actual Rs.1,04,067.65/-
medical bills/expenditure
Compensation on account of Misc. Rs.12,000/- @
heads such a special diet, nourishing, Rs.1500/- x 8 days
food, transportation etc.
Compensation on account of future Rs.10,000/-
medical expenses. (cumulatively)
Compensation on account of damages Rs.20,000/-
for pain, suffering and trauma as a (cumulatively)
consequences of injuries
Total Rs.1,54,067.65/-
7. Aggrieved by the grant of inadequate compensation, the present
appeal was preferred.
3 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -4-
8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant (claimant) submits that the
compensation is grossly inadequate. He submits that the marriage prospects
of the claimant were grossly diminished as she suffered injuries on her face
and scars are still subsisting. He accordingly prays that adequate
compensation be granted. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has
placed reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court of India in the
case of Rekha Jain vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 (3) RCR (Civil)
996 and Mohd. Sabeer @ Shabir Hussain vs. Regional Manager, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation (Civil Appeal Nos.9070-9071 of 2022
arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.481-482 of 2019, decided on 09.12.2022).
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that no
permanent disability was suffered by the appellant and that the argument that
the marriage prospects of the appellant were diminished on account of
permanent scars being on her face, is not supported by any evidence. He
submits that under the circumstances, no enhancement in compensation
deserves to be granted.
11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties and have also perused the record.
11.1 Since it is an appeal by the claimant and no appeal has been
filed by the insurance company, the findings on issue No.1 are affirmed. As
regards the quantum of compensation, the appellant Karampreet Kaur duly
stepped into the witness box as CW1. She stated that she was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and she had sustained multiple grievous injuries on
her head, face and other parts of the body. She deposed that her marriage
prospects had been ruined on account of the disfigurement of her face. She
4 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -5-
also deposed that she had suffered permanent disability and had also
suffered mental pain and suffering. Nothing came in her cross-examination
which could have created any doubt in what she had stated.
11.2 CW2 Dr. Rajinder Kumar Mittal, Professor, Department of
Plastic Surgery, DMC (H), Ludhiana deposed as under:-
"I have brought the original record relating to the patient
Karampreet Kaur. The patient Karampreet Kaur was admitted in
Emergency of D.MC and Hospital on 30.10.2017 with MR No.378613,
with the alleged history of road side accident, when she was travelling on
two wheeler and had an accident under unknown circumstances.
The patient had fracture of the mandible and soft tissue injury of
the same. I have seen the discharge summary Ex.C2. I identify the same
and as per that very history of the patient the HDBT few hours prior to
admission when patient was on a two wheeler and her vehicle got hit and
he had a fall. There is no history of LOC/Head injury/Seizures/EN Bleed
H/o injuries over face and scalp. The patient taken to local Hospital
where first aid was given following which he was brought to DMC and
Hospital for further management.
The patient presented to DMC & H with above mentioned
complaints, after clinical examination he was found to have injuries over
face and scalp. Patient underwent ORIF of Mandible with soft tissue
repair face. Ortho consultant under Dr. Rajnish Garg was taken after
clearance from eye and surgery team and patient unde3rwent ORIF or
Mandible with soft tissue repair face under GA on 30.10.2017. In the
post op period a ENT consultant ander Dr.Sanjeev Purt was taken and
orders followed. IN view fo defect over Fact, plastis surgery consultant
was sought under Dr.R.K.Mittal and patient was transferred under
plastic surgery team. In the post op period patient was kept under
observation, flap was found healthy. There was no post op
complications. Patient is now being discharged under stable condition.
She was operated upon for fracture mandible and soft tissue
prepare. She was discharged on 07.11.2017. Usually because of the such
kind of injuries as suffered by the patient there is disfigurement of the
face. With plastic surgery disfigurement of face etc can be improved. At
the time of discharge of the patient she was having soft tissue injury on
right eye. Such eye injury can be improved by surgery but can not be
fully cured. I have no record with me regarding follow up treatment of
the patient from our hospital."
5 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -6-
11.3 His statement shows that the appellant had suffered grievous
injuries in the accident and she is extremely lucky to have survived.
However, being a young girl of 22 years of age, she definitely had to go
through lot of pain and suffering apart from disfigurement of her face as a
result of which, she had to undergo plastic surgery. The doctor clearly stated
that with plastic surgery, disfigurement of the face etc. can be improved.
This essentially means that the said disfigurement cannot be completely
cured. Still further, he deposed that at the time of discharge, she was having
a soft tissue injury on the right eye and that the said injury can be improved
by surgery but could not be fully cured.
11.4 Her photographs are also available on record as Mark A and
Mark B. Though, they were not exhibited meaning thereby, they were not
proved in accordance with law, it has to be borne in mind that proceedings
before the MACT are summary in nature and strict rules of evidence do not
apply. No evidence to the contrary was produced by the respondents. The
photographs do show substantial disfigurement of the face. Under the
circumstances, it is clear that the compensation awarded is inadequate.
11.5 In the case of Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon
and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3692, the Hon'ble Apex Court was
considering the issue of grant of compensation to a 12 years old girl on
account of injuries suffered in a motor vehicular accident. Though, the facts
in that case were different, the principles of assessment of damages in
personal injury cases which were discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India would remain the same. The Hon'ble Apex Court examined the
entire law on assessment of damages in personal injury cases. The said
findings would be essential to be reproduced:-
6 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -7-
"13. It was also stated by the mother of the appellant (PW-2), that she
wanted to make her daughter a badminton player but all her hopes have
now vanished due to the unfortunate accident. It was stated by her that
the appellant was a brilliant student and had she not met with the
accident, she would have got a job of at least Rs. 25,000-30,000/-per
month, but as a result of the accident she has become a dull student.
14. It would also be appropriate to refer to the evidence of Dr.
Monica Juneja (PW-3), who proved the Disability Certificate dated 10th
January 2011. As per the said certificate, the appellant has suffered 75%
disability, which is permanent in nature on account of moderate mental
retardation. This disability is in relation to the whole body, which is non-
progressive. It is stated in the certificate that this is a case of road traffic
accident with Subarachnoid Haemorrhage with healed fracture femur
left with moderate mental retardation which means she has an
Intelligence Quotient of 41 and social Quotient of 43.
15. It is recorded in the testimony of Dr. Monica Juneja (PW-3) that,
children with moderate mental retardation are generally able to learn
skills up to the level of 2nd Standard/Class as adults and can work under
close supervision only. Further, the appellant also has severe apathy and
has no control over passage of her urine. Because of severe apathy, the
appellant has no interest in playing or interacting with other children.
The appellant would require very close supervision of an attendant for
her day-to-day care. The appellant would also require admission in a
special school or training by a special education teacher.
16. Dr. Monica Juneja (PW-3) has also stated that, due to all these
problems, her marriage prospects may be affected. However, her
possibility of procreation is not affected on account of mental
retardation.
17. This Court, in the case of Kajal (supra), had an opportunity to
consider a case with identical facts. In the said case, a girl (Kajal) aged
12 sustained brain injuries on account of an accident. The accident had
very serious consequences on her. Kajal was examined for an
assessment of her disability. It was assessed that, because of the head
Injury, Kajal is left with very low IQ and severe weakness in all her four
limbs, she suffers from severe hysteria and severe urinary incontinence.
Her disability had been assessed as 100%.
18. This Court, in the said case, referred to a number of cases where
the principles for grant of compensation have been enunciated. Cases
from foreign jurisdiction as well as cases of this Court were relied upon
to extract the principles to be applied while assessing compensation. It
would be apposite to refer to the following paragraphs of the said case:
7 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -8-
"8. In Phillips v. London & South Western Railway Co. [Phillips
v. London & South Western Railway Co., [L.R.] 5 Q.B.D. 78
(CA)], Field, J., while emphasising that damages must be full and
adequate, held thus: (QBD p. 79)
"... You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his
original position, but you must bring your reasonable
common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that
this is the only occasion on which compensation can be
given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have,
therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all.
He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the
hands of the defendants and you must take care to give
him full fair compensation for that which he has
suffered."
Besides, the Tribunals should always remember that the
measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to
enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his
misadventure".
9. In Mediana, In re [Mediana, In re, [1900] A.C. 113
(HL)), Lord Halsbury held (AC pp. 116-17)
"... Of course the whole region of inquiry into damages is
one of extreme difficulty. You very often cannot even lay
down any principle upon which you can give damages;
nevertheless, it is remitted to the jury, or those who stand
in place of the jury, to consider what compensation in
money shall be given for what is a wrongful act. Take the
most familiar and ordinary case how is anybody to
measure pain and suffering in moneys counted? Nobody
can suggest that you can by any arithmetical calculation
establish what is the exact amount of money which would
represent such a thing as the pain and suffering which a
person has undergone by reason of an accident. In truth, I
think it would be very arguable to say that a person would
be entitled to no damages for such things. What manly
mind cares about pain and suffering that is past? But
nevertheless the law recognises that as a topic upon which
damages may be given."
10. The following observations of Lord Morris in his
speech in H. West & Son Ltd. v. Shephard [H. West & Son Ltd. v.
Shephard, [1964] A.C. 326 [1963] 2 WLR 1359 (HL)], are very
pertinent: (AC p. 346)
8 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -9-
"... Money may be awarded so that something tangible
may be procured to replace something else of the like
nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money
cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and
shattered. All that Judges and courts can do is to award
sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable
compensation. In the process there must be the endeavour
to secure some uniformity in the general method of
approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable
and must be assessed with moderation. Furthermore, it is
eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable
injuries should be compensated by comparable awards."
In the same case, Lord Devlin observed (at p. 357) that the
proper approach to the problem was to adopt a test as to what
contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would
allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours
and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing?",
which should be kept in mind by the court in determining
compensation in personal injury cases.
11. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in
Ward v. James [Ward v. James, [1966] 1 Q.B. 273: [1965] 2 WLR
455 : [1965] 1 All ER 563 (CA)], laid down the following three
basic principles to be followed in such like cases: (QB pp. 299-
300)
"First, assessibility: In cases of grave Injury,
where the body is wrecked or the brain destroyed, it is very
difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so
difficult that the award must basically be a conventional
figure, derived from experience or from awards in
comparable cases. Secondly, uniformity: There should be
some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar
decisions are given in similar cases; otherwise there will
be great dissatisfaction in the community, and much
criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly,
predictability: Parties should be able to predict with some
measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded
in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled
peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to
the public good."(emphasis in original)
9 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -10-
12.The assessment of damages in personal injury cases
raises great difficulties. It is not easy to convert the physical and
mental loss into monetary terms. There has to be a measure of
calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as
can, in the circumstances, should be made.
13. McGregor's Treatise on Damages, 14th Edition, Para
1157, referring to heads of damages in personal injury actions
states:
"The person physically injured may recover both
for his pecuniary losses and his non-pecuniary losses. Of
these the pecuniary losses themselves comprise two
separate items viz. the loss of earnings and other gains
which the plaintiff would have made had he not been
injured and the medical and other expenses to which he is
put as a result of the injury, and the courts have sub-
divided the non-pecuniary losses into three categories viz.
pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life and loss of
expectation of life."
14. In Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala
Devi [Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi,
(1979) 4 SCC 365: 1979 SCC (Cri) 996: 1980 ACJ 55], this Court
held: (SCC p. 366, para 2)
"2.... the determination of the quantum must be
liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in
a free country in generous scales."
15. In R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.
[R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC
551: 1995 SCC (Cri) 250], dealing with the different heads of
compensation in Injury cases this Court held thus: (SCC p. 556,
para 9)
"9. Broadly speaking while fixing the amount of
compensation payable to a victim of an accident, the
damages have to be assessed separately as pecuniary
damages and special damages. Pecuniary damages are
those which the victim has actually incurred and which
are capable of being calculated in terms of money;
whereas non-pecuniary damages are those which are
incapable of being assessed by arithmetical calculations.
In order to appreciate two concepts pecuniary damages
may include expenses incurred by the claimant (1)
medical attendance; (ii) loss of earning of profit up to the
10 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -11-
date of trial; (iii) other material loss. So far as non-
pecuniary damages are concerned, they may include (1)
damages for mental and physical shock, pain and
suffering, already suffered or likely to be suffered in the
future; (ii) damages to compensate for the loss of
amenities of life which may include a variety of matters
i.e. on account of injury the claimant may not be able to
walk, run or sit; (iii) damages for loss of expectation of
life i.e. on account of injury the normal longevity of the
person concerned is shortened; (iv) inconvenience,
hardship, discomfort, disappointment, frustration and
mental stress in life."
16. In Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay
Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 (2011) 1 SCC
(Cri) 1161], this Court laid down the heads under which
compensation is to be awarded for personal injuries: (SCC p. 348,
para 6)
"6. The heads under which compensation is
awarded in personal Injury cases are the following:
Pecuniary damages (Special damages)
(1) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalisation,
medicines, and miscellaneous transportation, nourishing
expenditure. food,
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
11 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -12-
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."
17. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K.
Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274
(2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279: (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638], this Court held
as follows: (SCC p. 276, para 2)
"2. There cannot be actual compensation for
anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The
quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the
loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic
approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") stipulates that
there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it
becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just
compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall,
and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
19. This Court, in the said case, thereafter, formulated various heads
such as loss of earnings, expenses related to treatment, attendant
charges, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, loss of marriage
prospects, future medical treatment. Ultimately, this Court enhanced the
compensation awarded by the High Court from Rs. 25,78,501/- to Rs.
62,27,000/-.
20. In another case titled Master Ayush (supra), this Court was
called upon to adjudicate on an appeal filed by a 5-year-old victim of a
road accident seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the
Tribunal.
21. In the said case, Ayush was left as a paraplegic patient as a result
of the accident. He was examined by two doctors. He was not able to
move both his legs and had complete sensory loss in the legs, urinary
incontinence, bowel constipation and bed sore. Ayush was aged about 5
years on the date of the accident, hence, he lost his childhood and
became dependant on other(s) for his routine work.
22. This Court, in the said case, relying on the decision of Kajal
(supra) enhanced the compensation under the head of loss of future
earnings due to permanent disability for life, medical expenses, future
medical expenses, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, loss of
marriage prospects, attendant charges and conveyance charges. This
12 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -13-
Court enhanced the compensation awarded to the appellant therein from
Rs. 13,46,805/- to Rs. 49,93,000/-.
23. Recently, this Court in the case of K.S. Muralidhar (supra) on an
elaborate consideration of certain authorities (scholarly as also judicial)
on the aspect of "pain and suffering" set out the contours. It would be
relevant to refer to the following paragraphs of the said case:
"14. In respect of 'pain and suffering' in cases where
disability suffered is at 100%, we may notice a few decisions of
this Court:-
14.1 In R.D Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. It
was observed:
"17. The claim under Sl. No. 16 for 'pain and
suffering' and for loss of amenities of life under Sl. No.
17, are claims for non-pecuniary loss. The appellant has
claimed lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000 each under the
two heads. The High Court has allowed Rs. 1,00,000
against the claims of Rs. 6,00,000. When compensation is
to be awarded for 'pain and suffering' and loss of amenity
of life, the special circumstances of the claimant have to
be taken into account including his age, the unusual
deprivation he has suffered, the effect thereof on his
future life. The amount of compensation for non-
pecuniary loss is not easy to determine but the award must
reflect that different circumstances have been taken into
consideration. According to us, as the appellant was an
advocate having good practice in different courts and as
because of the accident he has been crippled and can
move only on wheelchair, the High Court should have
allowed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of claim for
'pain and suffering' and Rs. 1,50,000 in respect of loss of
amenities of life. We direct payment of Rs. 3,00,000
(Rupees three lakhs only) against the claim of Rs.
6,00,000 under the heads ""pain and suffering" and
"Loss of amenities of life".
(Emphasis Supplied)
14.2 This Judgment was recently referred to by this Court
in Sidram v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. reference was
also made to Karnataka SRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty (irrespective
of the percentage of disability incurred, the observations are
instructive), wherein it was observed:
13 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -14-
"18. A person not only suffers injuries on account
of accident but also suffers in mind and body on account
of the accident through out his life and a feeling is
developed that his no more a normal man and cannot
enjoy the amenities of life as another normal person can.
While fixing compensation for pain and suffering as also
for loss of amenities, features like his age, marital status
and unusual deprivation he has undertaken in his life
have to be reckoned."
14.3 In Kajal v. Jagdish Chand considering the facts of
the case, i.e., 100% disability, child being bedridden for life, her
mental age being that of a nine-month-old for life a vegetative
existence, held that "even after taking a conservative view of the
matter an amount payable for the 'pain and suffering' of this
child should be at least Rs. 15,00,000/-."
14.4 In Ayush v. Reliance General Insurance relying on
Kajal (supra) the amount awarded in 'pain and suffering' was
enhanced to Rs. 10,00,000. The child who had suffered the
accident was five years old and the Court noted in paragraph 2
that:
"As per the discharge certificate, the appellant is
not able to move both his legs and had complete sensory
loss in the legs, urinary incontinence, bowel constipation
and bed sores. The appellant was aged about 5 years as on
the date of the accident, hence has lost his childhood and
is dependent on others for his routine work."
14.5 In Lalan (supra) cited by the claimant-appellant, the
Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- which was enhanced to Rs.
40,000/- by the High Court. Considering the fact that the
appellant therein has suffered extensive brain injury awarded
compensation under 'pain and suffering' to the tune of
Rs.3,00,000/-."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court then assessed the compensation under
various heads. This Court also embarks upon the same exercise. The
compensation under various heads is, therefore, assessed as under:-
a) Loss of income/earning capacity.
The appellant was 22 years old at the time of accident.
As per her, she was giving tuitions and was earning Rs.15000/-
14 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -15-
per month. However, no evidence to this effect was produced.
She remained admitted in hospital from 30.10.2017 to
07.11.2017 and thereafter, took follow up treatment. It,
therefore, means that she must have not been able to work for
about one month. The MACT assessed the loss of income at
Rs.8,000/-. Taking the notional income of a young girl of 22
years old, who was doing her M.Sc. and also imparting tuitions
to be Rs.10,000/- per month. The compensation for loss of
income would be Rs.10,000/-. There would, however, be no
loss in her earning capacity as fortunately she did not suffer any
permanent disability.
b) Pain and suffering.
In Baby Sakshi Greola's case (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India assessed the pain and suffering to the
tune of Rs.15 lakhs. However, in that case, there was almost a
100% mental disability to a 12 years old child, which is not the
case here. In the present case, the appellant must have
undergone considerable pain and suffering both, mental and
physical and under the circumstances, this Court assesses the
compensation under the said head @ Rs.2 lakhs.
c) Loss of marriage prospects.
In Baby Sakshi Greola's case (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India assessed the loss of marriage prospects
at Rs.5 lakhs. In the present case, keeping in view the entire
circumstances as have been discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, this Court assesses the compensation on account of
15 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -16-
loss of marriage prospects @ Rs.2 lakhs.
d) The compensation on account of special diet and
transportation etc. is assessed at Rs.50,000/-.
e) The compensation on account of actual medical
bills remains the same i.e. Rs.1,04,067.65/-.
f) The compensation on account of future medical
expenses is assessed at Rs.1 lakh.
13. In view of the above, the compensation as assessed by this
Court and that of the MACT is tabulated as under:-
Sr. Heads Assessed by the Enhanced by
No. MACT this Court
1. Compensation on account Rs.8000/- Rs.10,000/-
of loss of income during
the period claimant
remained
injured/indisposed for 20
days
2. Compensation on account Rs.1,04,067.65/- No change
of actual medical
bills/expenditure
3. Compensation on account Rs.12,000/- @ Rs.50,000/-
of Misc. heads such a Rs.1500/- x 8
special diet, nourishing, days
food, transportation etc.
4. Compensation on account Rs.10,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
of future medical (cumulatively)
expenses.
5. Compensation on account Rs.20,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
of damages for pain, (cumulatively)
suffering and trauma as a
consequences of injuries
6. Marriage Prospects No Rs.2,00,000/-
compensation
Total Rs.1,54,067.65/- Rs.5,60,000/-
14. The total compensation as enhanced by this Court, therefore,
comes to Rs.5,60,000/-. After deducting a sum of Rs.1,54,067.65/-, as
assessed by the MACT, the balance compensation comes to
Rs.4,05,932.35/-, rounded off to Rs.4,06,000/-. This amount would be
16 of 17
FAO-3033-2019 (O&M) -17-
payable in addition to the amount assessed by the learned MACT along with
interest @ 7 per cent annually. The liability to pay the same would be as per
the award.
15. The present appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
November 11, 2025
vcgarg
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
17 of 17
