Rajesh vs Madan Lal Etc.
2026 Latest Caselaw 2972 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh vs Madan Lal Etc. on 2 April, 2026

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                    CHANDIGARH
               (223)                                FAO-250-2002 (O&M)
                                                Date of decision: 02.04.2026


               Rajesh Kumar                                                    ...Appellant

                                                           Versus
               Madan Lal And Ors                                              ... Respondents

               CORAM :HON'BLE
                      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL

               Present:               Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate, and
                                      Mr. Khushan Dutta, Advocate, and
                                      Mr. Parv Ahluwalia, Advocate,
                                      for the appellant.

                                      Mr. Sumit Gupta, Advocate,
                                      for respondent No.4-Insurance
                                                     No.4 Insurance Company.

                                          ***
               AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the claimant claimant-appellant

seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter referred to as "the learned

Tribunal") vide award dated 09.01.2001, .2001, whereby a su sum of ₹3,50,000/-

along with interest @ 12% 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization was awarded on account of injuries sustained by the

appellant in a motor vehicular accident dated 01.08.1999. The accident

occurred due to the the rash and negligent driving of bus bearing registration No.

HR-39-0942 0942 by respondent No.1.

No.1

2. Briefly stated, the facts as emerge from the impugned award are

that the appellant-claimant appellant claimant Rajesh Kumar filed a petition under Section 166

of the Motor Vehicles Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of

injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicular accident dated 01.08.1999 at

authenticity of this document/order about 1:40 PM. It was pleaded that while he was travelling as a pillion rider

on Scooter No. HR-34/6866, HR 34/6866, being driven on the correc correct side of the road, a

Haryana Roadways Bus bearing No. HR-39/0942, HR 39/0942, driven by respondent

No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side and struck

against the scooter, resulting in multiple grievous injuries. FIR No. 158

dated 02.08.1999 under Sections 279/337/338 IPC was registered at Police

Station Khol. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 30

years, was married and had two dependent children children, was stated to be running

a service station and also engaged in agricultural and allied activities. In

support of his avocation and income, he stepped into the witness box and

deposed that he was earning about Rs. 6,000/-

6,000/ per month, which formed the

basis of his claim before the learned Tribunal. It further emerges from the

evidence on record that the appellant was initially taken to PHC Kanina and

thereafter shifted to Pushpanjali Hospital, Gurgaon Gurgaon, where he remained

admitted dmitted from 01.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and underwent multiple surgical

procedures. The medical evidence, including testi testimony of doctors and

disability certificate issued by the competent medical board, shows that the

appellant suffered preganglionic brachial plexus injury (right) along with

fractures of right upper limb and femur, and was assessed to have suffered

60% permanent nent disability in relation to the right upper limb (and not to the

whole body), resulting in monoplegia, muscle wasting and functional

impairment of the limb. Insofar as the medical expenses are concerned, the

appellant has substantiated his claim by placing placing on record medical bills and

documents exhibited as Ex.P-3 Ex.P to Ex.P-44 and Ex.P Ex.P-15 to Ex.P-116, besides

additional bills produced in evidence as Ex.P Ex.P-148 to Ex.P-153. The said

authenticity of this document/order unrebutted documentary evidence clearly establishes that the appellant

incurred medical expenditure of approximately ₹2,00,000/- towards his

treatment. The evidence further indicates that he remained under prolonged

treatment, underwent repeated follow-up follow up visits to the hospital and incurred

additional expenses towards transportation and attendant care. On the basis

of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed three issues and,

upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led on record,

decided Issue No.1 in favour of the claimant and partly allowed the claim

petition, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,50,000/-

3,50,000/ to the appellant Rajesh Kumar

along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim

petition till realization, fastening the liability jointly and severally upon the

respondents. Aggrieved Aggrieved against the aforesaid award passed by the learned

Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant claimant-appellant contends that the

learned Tribunal erred both on facts and in law in awarding a meagre

compensation of ₹3,50,000/-,, which is wholly inadequate and not

commensurate with the nature of injuries and permanent disability suffered

by the appellant. It is argued that the appellant sustains grievous injuries in

the accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

He remains admitted in the hospital from 01.08.1999 to 31.08.1999 and

underwent surgical procedures, including insertion of rods in his right upper

limb and right femur, as well as fixation with nails. It is further submitted

that the appellant's right hand becomes benumbed and suffers paralysis on

account of severe injuries. The appellant continues to visit Pushpanjali

authenticity of this document/order Hospital from his native village, Kanina, for follow follow-up treatment and incurs

medical expenses of approximately ₹3,00,000/--, besides an additional sum of

₹50,000/- spent on further treatment. His evidence in this regard stands duly

recorded before the learned Tribunal. It is further contended that the

appellant suffers ers permanent disability to the extent of 60%, resulting in

monoplegia of the right upper limb, accompanied by pain and restricted

movement in the right knee, muscle wasting of the right upper limb, and

scarring over the right arm, forearm and thigh. Learn Learned counsel submits that

the learned Tribunal fails to properly appreciate the medical evidence, the

expenses incurred on treatment, and the future medical needs of the

appellant. It is also argued that the appellant, aged about 30 years, is engaged

in multiple iple avocations, including running a service station, hatchery, poultry

farm and agricultural work, earning about ₹6,000/ ₹6,000/- per month, and that the

loss of future earning capacity is not adequately assessed. It is thus

contended that the compensation awarded awarded under various heads, including

pain and suffering and loss of amenities, is grossly inadequate, and the

impugned award deserves to be modified by enhancing the compensation

along with interest and costs.

4. Per contra, contra learned counsel for respondent No. No.4-Insurance

Company contends that the impugned award does not suffer from any

illegality or perversity and has been passed after due appreciation of oral as

well as documentary evidence. It is argued that the appellant has failed to

substantiate the claim for enhancement by leading reliable evidence and that

the learned Tribunal has already granted just and reasonable compensation.

Learned counsel further submits that the rate of interest awarded is in

authenticity of this document/order consonance with settled law and does not warrant any up upward revision. It is

maintained that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are well well-

reasoned and do not call for any interference by this Court. Consequently, it

is prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves dismissal.

5. After hearing hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the

record, the question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is

whether the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and

reasonable, or whether the same warrants enhancement in ligh light of the nature

of injuries, extent of permanent disability and its impact on the earning

capacity of the claimant-appellant.

claimant

6. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the

record. the disability certificate (Ex.P-15), ( ), duly proved on record by PW-6

Dr. B.B. Nagpal, Registrar, Department of Orthopaedics, PGIMS, Rohtak,

who was a member of the duly constituted Medical Board, establishes that

the appellant was examined by the Board and was found to have sustained

multiple grievous injuries, injuries, including fractures of both bones of the right

forearm, fracture of right humerus and fracture of shaft of right femur, along

with preganglionic brachial plexus injury (right). The medical evidence

further reveals that on account of the said injuries, tthe appellant has

developed monoplegia of the right upper limb, accompanied by muscle

wasting, persistent pain, scarring over the right arm, forearm and thigh, and

significant restriction of movements. The Medical Board has assessed the

permanent disability of the claimant to the extent of 60% in relation to the

right upper limb, and it has been specifically opined that the said disability is

permanent in nature and not likely to improve in future, as the electro electro-

authenticity of this document/order diagnostic studies indicated no possibility of of recovery in the brachial plexus.

However, it is evident that the said assessment pertains only to the right

upper limb and not to the whole body. In view of the law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 SCC 343,

the percentage ercentage of permanent disability cannot be mechanically equated with

the percentage of loss of earning capacity and the Court is required to assess

the functional disability having regard to the nature of avocation of the

claimant. In the present case, the the claimant was engaged in running a service

station and in agricultural and allied activities, which necessarily require

substantial physical labour and effective use of both upper limbs. Having

regard to the nature of injuries, the resultant paralysis and functional

impairment of the right upper limb, and its impact on the appellant's ability

to carry on his avocation, this Court assesses the functional disability

affecting the earning earning capacity of the claimant at 60 60%. Insofar as the income

of the appellant is concerned, it has come on record that he was engaged in

running a service station and was also involved in agricultural and allied

activities. In support thereof, PW-10 PW 10 Jainarain, an independent witness

running a business usiness of assembling electric monoblock motors adjacent to the

service station of the appellant, has categorically deposed that he was

running the said service station and was earning approximately Rs. 5,000/ 5,000/-

per month prior to the accident. The said testimony testimony lends due corroboration

to the case of the claimant-appellant claimant appellant regarding his avocation and source of

income. Though no documentary evidence in the form of account books,

income tax returns or salary slips has been produced, the same cannot be

held against ainst the appellant, particularly in the case of a self self-employed person

authenticity of this document/order engaged in small-scale small scale business activities, where maintenance of formal

accounts is not always expected. However, keeping in view the nature of

evidence available on record, this Court assesses the monthly income of the

appellant at Rs. 5,000/-

5,000/ per month.

7. Insofar as the computation of compensation is concerned, this

Court is guided by the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121 and

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680. As per

Pranay Sethi (supra), an addition of 40% towards future prospects is

warranted in the case of a self-employed self employed person below the age of 40 years.

Accordingly, the monthly monthly income of the appellant, assessed at Rs. 5,000/ 5,000/-, is

enhanced by 40% and comes to Rs. 7,000/-

7,000/ per month, i.e. Rs. 84,000/ 84,000/- per

annum. Further, in terms of Sarla Verma (supra), the appropriate multiplier

applicable to a person aged about 30 years is 117. Considering the functional

disability affecting the earning capacity of the claimant at 60%, the loss of

future earning is assessed at Rs. 50,400/-

50,400/ per annum (Rs. 84,000 × 60%), and

by applying the multiplier of 17, the total loss of future earning come comes to Rs.

8,56,800/-.

8. The Tribunal has computed the medical expenses at ₹2,00,000/-

on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record, including Ex.P3

(₹97,000/-), ), Ex.P4 (₹6,600/-) ( ) and other medical bills i.e. Ex.P15 to Ex.P16

and Ex.P148 to Ex.P153.

Ex.P153. The said assessment is borne out from the record.

Notably, no additional evidence has been produced either before the

Tribunal or in the present appeal to warrant any modification of the said

amount. Accordingly, the medical expenses as assessed by the learned

authenticity of this document/order Tribunal are taken as such. The appellant is further entitled to compensation

under the non--pecuniary pecuniary and incidental heads. The medical evidence on

record clearly establishes that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries

resulting in permanent disability disability of the right upper limb, accompanied by

monoplegia, muscle wasting, restriction of movements and persistent pain.

Such injuries would have caused considerable physical pain, mental trauma

and prolonged suffering during the period of treatment as w well as thereafter.

Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-

1,00,000/ is awarded towards pain and suffering.

Further, on account of the permanent disability and functional impairment,

the claimant has been deprived of leading a normal and active life and is

unable to enjoy joy the ordinary amenities of life as he did prior to the accident.

The loss of functional utility of the right upper limb has a continuing adverse

impact on his day-to-day day day activities and overall quality of life. Therefore, a

sum of Rs. 25,000/-

25,000/ is awarded towards loss of amenities. The evidence on

record also indicates that the claimant remained under prolonged treatment

and would have required assistance of an attendant during the period of

hospitalization and recovery. Considering the nature of injuries and duration

of treatment, a sum of Rs. 25,000/-

25,000/ is awarded towards attendant charges. In

addition, the claimant would have incurred expenses towards special diet,

transportation and frequent visits to the hospital for follow follow-up treatment.

Though exact documentary documentary proof may not be available for each such

expense, the same are inevitable in cases of this nature. Accordingly, a sum

of Rs. 25,000/-- is awarded towards special diet and conveyance. Further,

having regard to the nature of injuries, permanent disab disability and the

likelihood of continued medical care, physiotherapy and follow follow-up

authenticity of this document/order treatment, a sum of Rs. 75,000/-

75,000/ is awarded towards future medical

expenses. Accordingly, the just compensation payable to the claimant is re re-

assessed as under:

Sr. Head of Compensation Amount (₹) No. 8,56,800/-.

1. Loss of future earning capacity

2. Medical expenses 2,00,000

3. Pain and suffering 1,00,000

4. Loss of amenities 25,000

5. Attendant charges 25,000

6. Special diet & conveyance 25,000

7. Future medical expenses 75,000 Total ₹13,06,800

9. Consequently, in view of the above discussion, the present

appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 09.01.2001 passed by the

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul, is modified to the extent

that the compensation payable to the claimant is enha enhanced from ₹3,50,000/-

to ₹13,06,800/-.

10. The enhanced amount of compensation, i.e., over and above the

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, shall carry interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its

realization.

11. All pending miscellaneous applications, applications, if any, stand disposed

of. No order as to costs.

(AMARINDER AMARINDER SINGH GREWAL GREWAL) JUDGE 02.04.2026 Shubham Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

authenticity of this document/order