[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lakhmi vs Ghudchandi on 29 November, 2025

Author: Sudeepti Sharma

Bench: Sudeepti Sharma

           FAO-671-2010                                 -1-



                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                                            AT CHANDIGARH

                                                        FAO-671-2010 (O&M)
                                                        Date of Reserve: 12.11.2025
                                                        Date of Pronouncement: 29.11.25
                                                        Uploaded on: 29.11.2025

           Lakhmi Chand alias Lakhi                                         ......Appellant

                                                        vs.


           Ghudchandi and ors.                                             ......Respondents

           CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

           Present:            Mr. Pavan Malik, Advocate
                               for the appellant.

                               Mr. Rahul Bansal, Advocate for
                               Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate
                               for respondent No. 3-Insurance Co.

                               ****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated

15.06.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nuh in

the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(for short, 'the Tribunal') for enhancement of compensation granted to the

claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/- along with interest @7.5%

per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a Motor

Vehicular Accident, occurred on 09.11.2006.

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 here for the

sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. The learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the

amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves to

be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and

compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company,

however, vehemently argues that the compensation awarded to the claimant

is on the higher side and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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 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 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 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 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 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.

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 Rs.4,90,989/-

cent addition) Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-

                                  transport         charges,
                                  nourishment, etc.
                                  Loss     of       matrimonial Rs.5,00,000/-
                                  prospects
                                  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 record shows that the appellant was 35 years of

age at the time of the accident and was stated to be earning Rs.10000/- per

month from Ayurvedic and Unani medical practice. It is not in dispute that

the appellant met with an accident on 09.11.2006 and due to accident, his

left leg became shortened and disfigured. The claimant/appellant suffered

35% permanent disability, as per Disability Certificate (Ex P-18).

10. A further perusal shows that the learned tribunal has not applied

the multiplier system while calculating the compensation. Furthermore, the

learned Tribunal has erred in awarding lump sum compensation of

Rs.50,000 under the heads of loss of earning during hospitalisation and

recovery, as well as future loss of earning without assessing any monthly

income of the claimant.

11. Even if the learned Tribunal had assessed the income of the

claimant as per the minimum wages prevalent in the state of Haryana at the

relevant point of time, it would have been Rs.4160/- per month but since the

claimant has been stated to be a highly qualified Ayurvedic and Unani

medical practitioner therefore, the income of the claimant has to be assessed

after considering his academic qualification as well. Reference at this stage

can be made to a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of Sharad

Singh (dead) through LR. v. H.D. Narang, 2025 INSC 1164 has observed

that academic qualifications should also be considered while assessing the

income of the claimant while calculating just compensation as mandated

under the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced

as under:-

"5. We were not convinced that the minimum wages

would be determined on the basis of the educational

qualification alone without reference to the nature of

work carried on. The learned Counsel after further

verification submitted that minimum wages adopted is of

the year 2001 applicable to a skilled worker. We are not

convinced that even that can be adopted for a graduate

who was in the process of sitting for the Chartered

Accountant examination which would have placed him in

a good employment with immense prospects. The

aspirations of the young man were shattered by the

accident which left him paraplegic and fighting for

breath, which also prompted the parents to relocate to

another part of the country. We are of the opinion that

even if he had not obtained the certificate as a Chartered

Accountant, upon graduation, he could have been

employed as an Accountant, who would have, on any

reasonable estimate, received an amount of Rs.5,000/- as

monthly income in the year 2001."

12. In view of the above judgment and after careful consideration of

all the documentary and oral evidence, including the copy of certificate

issued by Registrar, State Council of Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines (Mark

A-22), and the certificate of Government Ayurvedic and Unani Medicines

Council, Bihar (Mark A-33), which clearly proves that the claimant I.s

qualified to be a Ayurvedic medical practitioner. Consequently, it is difficult

to deviate from the conclusion that the claimant is a Ayurvedic and Unani

Medicines practitioner. Therefore, after taking into consideration the

minimum wages at the relevant time for highly skilled worker in the state of

Haryana and educational qualification of the appellant, this Court deems it

appropriate to assess the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10000/- per

month.

13. A further perusal of the award shows that the learned tribunal

has rightly awarded Rs.70,000 on account of 35% permanent disability. It is

a trite law that the grant of compensation for loss of future income is a

distinct head from the one under which compensation is granted for

permanent disability. The same is reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court

of India in a case of KAVIN vs. P. SREEMANI DEVI & ORS., 2025 INSC

1028. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

13. The Claims Tribunal further granted an amount of Rs. 3

lacs towards permanent disability suffered by the claimant.

This was after taking into consideration the 100% disability

suffered by the claimant. The High Court however set aside the

grant of compensation under this head by observing that as

compensation towards loss of income had been granted,

further amount of Rs. 3 lacs towards permanent disability was

not admissible. We do not find any basis whatsoever for this

approach of the High Court. The grant of compensation for

loss of future income is a distinct head from the one under

which compensation is granted for permanent disability. In the

light of the fact that the claimant suffered 100% permanent

disability and was living in a vegetative state, the High Court

was not justified in setting aside the grant of compensation

under this head. In our view, considering the nature of

disability suffered by the claimant, he would be entitled to

amount of Rs. 5 lacs under this head."

14. A perusal of the award further reveals that amount awarded for

transportation charges, special diet, loss of amenities of life and pain and

suffering is on the lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced.

Therefore, the award requires indulgence of this court.

RELIEF

15. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award

dated 15.06.2009 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.10000/- per month

                    2.          Loss of Future Prospect 40%        Rs.4000/-(10000X40%)

                    3.          Annual Income                      Rs.1,68,000/- (14000 X12)

4. Loss of future earning on Rs.58,800/- (35% of 1,68,000) account of 35% disability

5. Multiplier of 16 Rs.9,40,800/- (58800X16)

6. Medical Expenses Rs.30,000/-

7. On account of 35% permanent Rs.70,000/-

disability

8. Pain and suffering Rs.2,00,000/-

9. Attendant Charges Rs.60,000/-

10. Transportation Charges Rs.30,000/-

11. Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,00,000/-

12. Special Diet Rs.40,000/-

                                Total              compensation Rs.14,70,800/-

                                awarded:-






                                Deduction:-
                                Amount awarded by Tribunal     Rs.1,70,000/-
                                Enhanced     amount          of Rs.13,00,800/-( 1450800- 170000)
                                compensation

16. 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 appellant-claimant is

granted the interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date

of filing of claim petition till the date of its realization.

17. Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

enhanced amount of compensation along with interest with the Tribunal

within a period of two months from the receipt of copy of this judgment. The

Tribunal is directed to disburse the enhanced amount of compensation along

with interest in the account of the claimant, as per award dated 15.06.2009.

The claimant is directed to furnish his bank account details to the Tribunal.