[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Labh Singh vs Subhash Chander Etc. on 7 April, 2026

                     FAO-2587-2002 (O&M)            -1-



                      206        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                           AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                FAO-2587-2002 (O&M)
                                                                Date of Decision: 07.04.2026

                     LABH SINGH
                                                                       ......... APPELLANT

                                              VERSUS


                     SUBHASH CHANDER AND OTHERS
                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS


                     CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

                      Present:   Mr. Paramveer Singh, Advocate
                                 for the appellant.

                                 Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate
                                 for respondent No.1.

                                 Mr. Karan Singla, Advocate
                                 for respondent No.2.

                                 Mr. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
                                 for respondent No.3-National Insurance Company.

                                 *****
                     YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated

31.07.2001 passed by MACT, Ambala (for short "Tribunal") for

enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.87 of

23.05.1998 in a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

vide which a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- has been awarded as compensation to

the claimant/appellant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum due

to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident on account of

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -2-

rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1, while driving offending

vehicle bearing No.HP-31-3561 (for short 'offending vehicle'), owned

by respondent No.2, which was insured with respondent No.3.

2. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed

by the learned Tribunal:-

1. Whether the claimant had sustained injuries in an accident caused by Vehicle No.HP-31-3561 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1? OPP

2. To what amount of compensation, if any, the claimant is entitled to and from whom?OPP

3. Whether respondent No.3 is not liable to pay compensation, as alleged? OPR-3.

4. Relief.

3. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their case.

4. After hearing the parties and going through the material on

the file, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,97,060/- as

compensation to the claimant, on account of injuries suffered by him

along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim

petition till realization, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and

severally.

5. Feeling aggrieved, the appeal in hand has been preferred.

The material on file has been perused and parties have been heard.

6. The only issue required to be determined in the present

appeal relates to the assessment of compensation. Therefore, the entire

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -3-

facts regarding the manner of the accident are not required to be

reproduced in detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No.1

that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and negligent

driving on the part of respondent No.1, while driving offending vehicle

and respondents No.1 to 3 were held liable to pay compensation jointly

and severally. No appeal or cross-objections have been filed by the

respondents, challenging the said finding and accordingly, finding on

issue No.1 is not required to be interfered with and the same is affirmed.

7. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the present appeal

and the Tribunal has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court Branch

and the present appeal has to be decided on the basis of the facts and

evidence discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal

has not appreciated the facts of the case and evidence on file in the

correct perspective while assessing the compensation which is grossly

inadequate. The claimant had suffered 30% permanent disability and he

has been awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,97,060/-, for medical

expenses, permanent disability, transportation, loss of income, nutritious

diet and attendant charges. Learned counsel further argued that no

compensation has been awarded under the head of 'pain and sufferings',

whereas on account of permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant

will suffer 'loss of income' in future as well and adequate compensation

has not been awarded under pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. Learned

counsel prayed that impugned award is thus liable to be set aside and

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -4-

appellant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. In support of

his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon 2014 (1)

RCR (Civil) 914 Sanjay Verma Vs. Haryana Roadways, 2009(6) SCC

121 Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Another and 2017 (16) SCC 680 National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs.

Pranay Sethi and Others.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents argued

that the award in question is well reasoned and justified. The material on

file has been appreciated in the correct perspective while assessing the

compensation and no interference in the same is thus called for.

10. As per version of claimant, he had suffered multiple grievous

injuries including fracture of right leg at three places including fracture of

knee joint and he remained under treatment for a long time and had spent

Rs.60,000/- on his treatment, special diet, in engaging an attendant and

on transportation. Claimant appeared as PW3 and deposed that his right

leg was fractured and his knee joint was damaged. He was taken to Civil

Hospital, Mullana from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Ambala

City where he remained admitted for two days. Further relevant statement

of claimant is as under:-

" Operation on my right leg was conducted in Civil Hospital, Ambala and opined to amputate my right leg, therefore, I went to command Hospital Ambala, where I remained admitted for two months. Two operations were conducted by Dr. Mann. Patella of right knee was removed. External fixator was applied on my right leg for period of one and half month. After removal of external fixator plaster was applied for the period of seven-eight months. Infact plaster was applied for three times. Thereafter, I had been

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -5-

visiting Mann Hospital for dressing regularly. A plastic brace was applied for about 10-11 months after removal of plaster. During this period I was not able to stand or walk. I was totally confined to bed and use to move up to some distance with the help of crutches."

11. Claimant has also examined PW1 Dr. Rajinder Mann, of

Mann Orthopaedic Hospital, Ambala City, who deposed that claimant

remained admitted in his hospital as a case of compound communited

fracture of right patella (with fracture of right leg). He remained admitted

in the hospital from 17.04.1998 to 01.06.1998 and was discharged with

external fixator on his right leg. The right patella was removed and

patient was put on antibiotics, calcium and pain killers. Even after

discharge on 01.06.1998, the patient had attended his hospital in OPD

several times and he proved the discharge card Ex.P1 and further deposed

that patient was also given function brace on his right leg. He further

stated that he had charged a sum of Rs.25,500/- from the patient

including hospital charges and consultation charges. In addition to this,

claimant has also led in evidence bills Ex.P4 to Ex.P45, which were

tendered in evidence by the counsel for the claimant. However, the

Tribunal ignored the cash memos Ex.P4 to Ex.P45 on the ground that the

same have not been led in evidence during the examination of PW3 Labh

Singh or during examination of PW1 Dr. Rajinder Mann. These bills

have also not been countersigned by the treating doctor on whose

prescription the medicines were allegedly purchased. Rather, Dr.

Rajinder Mann PW1 while giving approximate charges taken by him has

categorically stated that the said charges included expenses incurred on

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -6-

medicines as well. Had these cash memos been put to Dr. Rajinder Mann

PW1, the position would have become clear and transparent. It was

further held that prescription slips of Dr. Rajinder Mann PW1 have also

not been produced to establish that he had prescribed these medicines

which have been purchased against bills Ex.P4 to Ex.P45 and learned

Tribunal did not rely upon the medical bills Ex.P4 to Ex.P45. The

reasoning given by the Tribunal, while rejecting these bills, does not

appear to be erroneous and is supported by cogent reasons and there is

thus no reason to take a contrary view. Accordingly, the award of sum of

Rs.25,500/- towards expenses incurred on treatment is not liable to be

interfered with.

12. The Tribunal has held that the claimant had suffered 30%

permanent disability as per disability certificate Ex.P2, which has been

proved by PW2 Dr. P.K. Nigam, Member of the Board, which assessed

the disability. PW2 had further stated that the claimant would have

difficulty in walking, running and sitting and will not be able to lift any

weight. As such, on account of permanent disability to the extent of 30%

suffered by the claimant, it will certainly diminish his earning capabilities

and the avocation or profession he will pursue. The compensation under

the head 'loss of income' thus has to be assessed keeping in view the

percentage by which his earning capability has been diminished and by

applying a suitable multiplier in view of law laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in 2010(4) PLR 242 Yadava Kumar Vs. The Divisional

Manager, National Insurance Company Limited.

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -7-

13. Besides this, Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2013 (3) RCR

(Civil) 934 - G.Ravindranath @ R. Chowdary Vs. E. Srinivas and

another, has held that in a case of accident resulting in injuries to the

victim, the compensation in personal injury cases should be determined

under the following heads:-

Pecuniary damages (Special damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines,

transportation, nourishing expenditure. food and miscellaneous

(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

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

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -8-

permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and/or

loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life.

14. In the present case also, the disability suffered by the

claimant has affected his right leg. As such, the disability suffered by him

will certainly diminish his earning capability as he will not be able to do

his job or routine work and lead his life in the same manner as he was

leading prior to the accident.

15. Regarding permanent disability and loss of income, claimant

Labh Singh stated that he has suffered permanent disability and he feels

pain in his right leg after walking for some distance and after standing for

about half an hour. He was working as a carpenter and he also deals in

sale and purchase of standing trees and used to earn Rs.6000/- to

Rs.7000/- per month.

16. PW4 Harkesh Singh deposed that he had sold wood to be

utilized by him in his avocation of a carpenter. The Tribunal on the basis

of evidence led on file held his monthly income to be Rs.2,100/- per

month. However, no evidence was led by the respondents to establish that

the claimant was not working as a carpenter and testimony of claimant as

well as PW4 Harkesh Singh in this regard has gone unrebutted.

17. Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding Civil Appeal

No.15021 of 2024 titled Karamjit Singh Vs. Amandeep Singh and

another vide judgment dated 17.12.2024 has held that a carpenter has to

be treated as a skilled person and it will be unfair to classify a carpenter

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -9-

as an unskilled worker. Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2019 (5) RCR (Civil)

884, Chameli Devi and others Vs. Jivrali Mian and others, has

assessed the monthly income of a carpenter to be Rs.5000/- per month in

the year 2001 and it was further held that in such cases where deceased is

engaged in such type of profession, claimants can only lead oral

evidence.

18. In the present case, the accident had taken place in the year

1998 and it can be assumed that the claimant must be earning at least

Rs.3,500/- per month while working as a carpenter. Learned Tribunal has

thus gravely erred while assessing his monthly income to be Rs.2,100/-

per month only, which is highly on lower side. Accordingly, income of

claimant is taken as Rs.3,500/- per month.

19. Claimant while appearing as PW3 on 10.01.2001 stated his

age to be 40 years and as such, he was around 40 years of age on the date

of accident. Accordingly, 40% of amount has to be added to his monthly

income towards future prospects in view of law laid down in

Sanjay Verma's case (supra) and Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and after

adding the same, his monthly income comes out to Rs.4,900/- per month

(Rs.3,500/- + Rs.1,400/-).

20. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of

30% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.1,470/-

(Rs.4,900/- X 30%) and 'annual loss of income' will come out to

Rs.17,640/- per annum (i.e. Rs.1,470/- X 12).

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -10-

21. The claimant was 40 years of age and in view of law laid

down in Pranay Sethi's case (supra) and Sarla Verma's case (supra),

the multiplier of 15 has to be applied which takes the compensation to

Rs.2,64,600/- (Rs.17,640/- X 15) on account of 'loss of income' due to

permanent disability.

22. The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on account

of pain and sufferings. The claimant had suffered fractures as well as

permanent disability. It must have taken at least six months for the

injuries to heal and during this period, claimant would not have been able

to do any work but no compensation has been given under the head of

'pain and sufferings'. It is a matter of common knowledge that pain

component in such injuries is enormous but Tribunal has gravely erred by

not awarding compensation under the head 'pain and sufferings'. Taking

into consideration the severity of the injuries suffered by the claimant, he

is held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation on account of

'pain and sufferings'.

23. The Tribunal has awarded loss of income for 13 and a half

months from 17.04.1998 to 03.03.2000 at the rate of Rs.2,100/- per

month amounting to Rs.28,350/-. However, his income has been held to

be Rs.3,500/- per month and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of

Rs.47,250/- (Rs.3,500/- X 13.5) on account of 'loss of income during

the period of treatment'.

24. Claimant has also been awarded a sum of Rs.2,000/- for

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -11-

transportation, which too is on lower side. The claimant was under

treatment for about 13 months and huge amount must have been spent on

transportation and he is accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/-

for the 'expenses incurred on transportation'.

25. However, the amount awarded for nutritious diet and in

engaging the attendant is adequate and no interference in the same is

called for.

26. Resultantly, the compensation to be awarded by this Court is

assessed as under:-

                        Sr. No.                 Head              Tribunal (₹)     This Court
                                                                                       (₹)
                               1.   Medical Expenses              Rs.25,500/-    Rs.25,500/-
                               2.   Permanent disability          Rs.1,20,960/- Rs.2,64,600/-

                               3.   Pain & suffering              --NIL--          Rs.30,000/-
                               4.   Transportation charges        Rs.2000/-      Rs.10,000/-
                               5.   Loss of income (treatment)    Rs.28,350/-    Rs.47,250/-

                               6.   Nutritious diet               Rs.9,450/-     Rs.9,450/-
                               7.   Attendant Charges             Rs.10,800/-    Rs.10,800/-
                                    Total                         Rs.1,97,060/- Rs.3,97,600/-
                                    Interest                      9%             9%

27. As a result of afore-said discussion, the present appeal is

partly allowed with costs and the claimant is held entitled to enhanced

compensation of Rs.2,00,540/- (Rs.3,97,600/- - Rs.1,97,060/-) (rounded

off to Rs.2,00,500/-) over and above the compensation awarded by

FAO-2587-2002 (O&M) -12-

Tribunal, payable by respondents No.1 to 3, jointly and severally, along

with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition

i.e. 23.05.1998, till realization.

28. Registry is directed to email the authenticated copy of the

award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of direction issued

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.534 of 2020

titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of