[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ritu vs Bipan Kumar & Ors. on 18 April, 2026

(Pronouncement)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

(1) FAO No. 4204 of 2011 (O&M)

Ritu
...Appellant
Versus
Bipan Kumar and others

...Respondents

(2) FAO No. 4206 of 2011 (O&M)

Shri Chander Parkash Bajaj and another
...Appellants
Versus

Bipan Kumar and others
...Respondents

AND

(3) FAO No. 4207 of 2011 (O&M)

Sunil Bajaj
...Appellant
Versus

Bipan Kumar and others
...Respondents

1 The date when the judgment was reserved 10.03.2026
2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 18.04.2026
3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on 18.04.2026
the website
4 Whether only operative part of the judgment Full
is pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced
5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable
judgment, and reasons thereof.

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA

By Mr. Piyush Aggarwal, Advocate for
Argued By:-
Mr. Saurabh Garg, Advocate
for the appellant(s) (in all cases).
DINESH KUMAR
2026.04.18 14:14
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

Mr. Himanshu Khanna, Advocate and
Mr. Tajender Khanna, Advocate
for the respondent(s)-Insurance Company.
(in FAO No. 4204 of 2011)

Mr. Nigam Bhardwaj, Advocate
for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company
(in FAO Nos. 4206 & 4207 of 2011)

****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.

By way of this common judgment, the present three

appeals, arising out of the Award dated 01.12.2010 passed by

the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat

(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), are being disposed

of. Vide the said Award, compensation of Rs. 23,200/- was

granted to Ritu, Rs. 47,200/- to Sunil, and a sum of Rs.

4,55,000/- was awarded on account of the death of Smt. Parkash

Rani. Since all the appeals emanate from the same accident and

impugn the aforesaid Award, they are being adjudicated

together.

[2] As sole issue for determination in the present

appeals is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal, a detailed narration of facts of the case is not

reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT(S)/CLAIMANT(S).

[3] Learned counsel for the appellants contended that

the impugned Award suffered from serious infirmities. It was

submitted that the income of the deceased was erroneously

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -3-

assessed at Rs. 5,000/- per month, despite cogent evidence on

record demonstrating that the deceased was earning Rs.

16,000/- per month. He further argued that the learned Tribunal

failed to grant just and reasonable compensation under the

conventional heads, including loss of consortium, loss of estate,

and appropriate funeral expenses. Additionally, it was contended

that the amounts awarded towards medical expenses as well as

pain and suffering were grossly inadequate and did not reflect

the actual loss endured. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that

the rate of interest awarded at 6% per annum was on the lower

side and warranted enhancement.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT/INSURANCE COMPANY.

[4] Per contra, learned counsel representing the

respondent/Insurance Company, neither refuted the factum of

accident nor even the negligence of the offending vehicle,

however submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the

present case, the compensation assessed by the learned

Tribunal called for no interference.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING [5] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the paper-book of the case. I find substance in the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant(s)/claimant(s).

                      FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M)                                               -4-


                     FAO-4204-2011 (O&M)
                     [6]               Before determining the quantum of compensation, it

is essential to draw guidance from the principles laid down in

similar cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In "Raj Kumar vs.

Ajay Kumar and Ors." reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 the Court

laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded

for personal injuries.

"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, the compensation will 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".

                      FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M)                        -5-


                     ASSESSMENT UNDER "LOSS OF INCOME" (RITU)

                     [7]          A    perusal     of    the    record   reveals   that    the

appellant/claimant was working as a teacher at Kidzee School,

Samalkha. However, no documentary evidence was produced

on record to prove the same. Even otherwise, it stands duly

proved that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the

accident, on account of which she remained outdoor patient till

15.09.2009 and incapacitated for a considerable period,

rendering her unable to attend her avocation. In such

circumstances, the absence of documentary proof could not

have been a ground to deny just compensation, particularly

when the nature of injuries and period of treatment clearly

established loss of earning during the period of rehabilitation. In

this situation observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

"Kubra Bibi vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.", reported as

2023 (3) Apex Court Judgments (SC) 23, to the effect that in

the absence of definite proof of income, the social status of the

deceased is to be kept in perspective where such persons are

employed in unorganized sector and the notional income is

required to be taken into consideration to help the cause of the

appellant. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced

hereunder:-

" 7. In a matter of the present nature where the compensation is sought and even in absence of definite proof of the income, the social status of the deceased is to

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -6-

be kept in perspective where such persons are employed in unorganized sector and the notional income in any event is required to be taken into consideration. The fact that the deceased had three dependents to be cared for and had claimed that he was working as a mechanic, the amount payable to an unskilled labour, cannot be the basis and in that circumstance when he was a skilled person, the daily income at Rs. 200 per day in any event could have been taken even if the income from jeep transport business was discarded for want of documents. More so in a circumstance, where the MACT had referred to the evidence available on record and then arrived at its conclusion, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the High Court is without being sensitive to nature of lis before it."

[7.1] Furthermore, the nature of proceedings in Motor

Accident Claims, being summary in nature, evidence in stricto

sensu is not required. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of

"Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram vs. Mukesh Kumar

Yadav & Ors.", reported as (2022) 1 SCC 198, held that in the

absence of proof of income, the minimum wage notification can

be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be absolute one to fix

the income of the deceased and some guesswork is required to

be done to assess the income. Relevant excerpt thereof is

reproduced hereunder:-

".......In the absence of salary certificate the minimum wage notification can be a yardstick but at the same time cannot be an absolute one to fix the income of the deceased. In the absence of documentary evidence on record some amount of guesswork is required to be done. But at the same time the guesswork for assessing the income of deceased should not

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -7-

be totally detached from reality. Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary evidence to show the monthly income of Shivpal, same does not justify adoption of lowest tier of minimum wage while computing the income. There is no reason to discard the oral evidence of the wife of the deceased who has deposed that late Shivpal was earning around Rs. 15,000/- per month......"

[7.2] In view of the aforesaid discussion and also while

keeping into account the facts and circumstances of the present

case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the notional

income of the appellant/claimant is assessed @ Rs. 4,500/- per

month (Rs. 150 per day). Now, as per the record available, the

appellant/claimant remained outdoor patient till 15.09.2009 i.e.

87 days. However, it cannot be presumed that she remained

completely out of her avocation for the entire said period of

nearly three months. At the same time, there is no cogent

evidence on record to establish the exact number of days for

which she was unable to attend her work. Nevertheless, having

regard to the nature of injuries sustained by her, it would be

reasonable to assume that she remained absent from her work

for a period of 10 days. Accordingly, the loss of income suffered

by her is assessed at Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. 150 × 10). Further, with

regard to the claim for compensation under the head of 'loss of

future income', in the absence of any cogent evidence

establishing permanent disability suffered by the

appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the

said head.

                      FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M)                         -8-


                     ASSESSMENT     UNDER                  "MEDICAL          EXPENSES        /
                     HOSPITALIZATION"

                     [8]            In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered head

injury accompanied by loss of consciousness, cervical soft tissue

injury, pain in right shoulder and left hand as well as soft tissue

injuries. Even though the appellant could only produce few

medical bills but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the

time of motor vehicular accident and the follow-up treatment

besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The

aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and

mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be

presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for

claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under this

head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-.

ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS

[9] For assessing just compensation under the head of

pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R.

Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that

the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be

reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization,

and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant.

Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -9-

"15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant- appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant-appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant-appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

[9.1] In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar's case (supra), and

having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly

proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained head

injury accompanied by loss of consciousness, cervical soft tissue

injury, pain in right shoulder and left hand as well as soft tissue

injuries. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER 'PECUNIARY HEADS'

[10] In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the

appellant/claimant, particularly the head injury accompanied by

loss of consciousness, cervical soft tissue injury, pain in right

shoulder and left hand as well as soft tissue injuries, it can

reasonably be inferred that she would have definitely gone for

her post-operative care. Therefore, compensation granted under

these heads is re-assessed @ Rs. 1,00,000/.

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -10-

CONCLUSION

[11] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation

in the following manner:-

                               S.No.   Nature                                            Amount (in Rs.)
                                 1.    Loss of Income                                            1,500.00
                                 2.    Medical Expenses/Hospitalization                         50,000.00
                                 3.    Compensation        under    other   pecuniary          1,00,000.00
                                       head
                                 4.    Compensation under pain and sufferings                  1,00,000.00
                                       Total Compensation                                      2,51,500.00
                                       Amount awarded by the Tribunal                           23,200.00
                                       Enhanced Compensation                                   2,28,300.00



                     FAO-4207-2011 (O&M)

ASSESSMENT UNDER "LOSS OF INCOME" (SUNIL BAJAJ)

[12] A perusal of the record indicates that the

appellant/claimant asserted that he was employed as a Legal

Manager with HDFC Bank; however, no documentary evidence

has been adduced to substantiate the said assertion.

Nevertheless, having regard to the facts and circumstances of

the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the

learned Tribunal rightly assessed the loss of income on the basis

of the leave record placed on record as Ex. PW5/D and Ex.

PW5/E, which reflect that the appellant remained on leave from

22.06.2009 to 25.06.2009 and again from 25.06.2009 to

04.07.2009. The said period, when computed, aggregates to 13

days during which the appellant remained absent from his duties.

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -11-

It is further borne out from his affidavit that he claimed a loss of

income amounting to Rs. 8,038/-. Accordingly, the learned

Tribunal justly and reasonably assessed the loss of income at

Rs. 8,100/-, which does not warrant any interference by this

Court. Further, with regard to the claim for compensation under

the head of 'loss of future income', in the absence of any cogent

evidence establishing permanent disability suffered by the

appellant/claimant, no amount is liable to be awarded under the

said head.

                     ASSESSMENT     UNDER                  "MEDICAL    EXPENSES         /
                     HOSPITALIZATION"

                     [13]         In the present case, appellant/claimant suffered

dental injury involving fracture of tooth crown, oral/facial

laceration (sutured wound) and post-traumatic dental damage

requiring RCT. Even though the appellant could only produce

few medical bills but keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at

the time of motor vehicular accident and the follow-up treatment

besides need of medicines during rehabilitation period, the

compensation under this head needs to be reassessed. The

aforesaid view finds force from the fact that due to shock and

mental agony on account of accident, a person cannot be

presumed to be vigilant enough to collect all the bills for

claim/reimbursement purposes, thus, compensation under this

head is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-.

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -12-

ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS

[14] For assessing just compensation under the head of

pain and sufferings, reference may be drawn to the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Murlidhar vs. R.

Subbulakshmi & Anr., 2024 INSC 886, wherein it was held that

the award of compensation under non-pecuniary heads must be

reasonable and commensurate with gravity of the injuries

suffered; the extent of disability; the duration of hospitalization,

and the mental and physical agony endured by the claimant.

Relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-

"15. Keeping in view the above-referred judgments, the injuries suffered, the 'pain and suffering' caused, and the life-long nature of the disability afflicted upon the claimant-appellant, and the statement of the Doctor as reproduced above, we find the request of the claimant- appellant to be justified and as such, award Rs. 15,00,000/- under the head 'pain and suffering', fully conscious of the fact that the prayer of the claimant- appellant for enhancement of compensation was by a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, we find the compensation to be just, fair and reasonable at the amount so awarded."

[14.1] In light of the settled legal position enunciated by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muralidhar's case (supra), and

having due regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, it is evident from the documentary evidence duly

proved on record that the appellant/claimant sustained dental

injury involving fracture of tooth crown, oral/facial laceration

(sutured wound) and post-traumatic dental damage requiring

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -13-

RCT. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.

ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER 'PECUNIARY HEADS'

[15] In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the

appellant/claimant, particularly dental injury involving fracture of

tooth crown, oral/facial laceration (sutured wound) and post-

traumatic dental damage requiring RCT, it can reasonably be

inferred that he would have definitely gone for his post-operative

care. Therefore, compensation granted under these heads is

reassessed at the rate of Rs. 1,00,000/.

CONCLUSION

[16] In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the

appellant/claimant shall be entitled for the grant of compensation

in the following manner:-

                               S.No.   Nature                                       Amount (in Rs.)
                               1.      Loss of Income                                      8,100.00
                               2.      Medical Expenses/Hospitalization                   50,000.00
                               3.      Compensation     under   other   pecuniary        1,00,000.00
                                       head
                               4.      Compensation under pain and sufferings            1,00,000.00
                                       Total Compensation                                2,58,100.00
                                       Amount awarded by the Tribunal                     47,200.00
                                       Enhanced Compensation                             2,10,900.00



                     FAO-4206-2011 (O&M)

                     QUESTION OF INCOME ASSESSED

                     [17]              In the present case, as per the statement of Chander

Parkash (husband of deceased) while deposing as PW-1, it was

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -14-

submitted that the deceased was doing tailoring work, thus

earning Rs. 16,000/- per month, however, no documentary

evidence to support the income of the deceased was placed

before the Tribunal, except the National Trade Certificate issued

by ITI, Panipat thus, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly

income of deceased @ Rs. 5,000/- per month.

[17.1] In case of "Laxmidhar Nayak v. Jugal Kishore

Behera" reported as (2018) 1 SCC 746, notional income of

house wife-cum-agricultural labour, who died in the year 1991

was considered as Rs. 4,500/- per month. (Due to passage of so

many years, there would be substantial hike in the minimum

wages of ordinary labours).

[17.2] Even in the case of "National Insurance Co. Ltd.

vs. Dhan Singh" reported as 2019 (3) PLR 301, notional

income of housewife was assessed @ Rs. 11,000/- per month

by this Court while awarding compensation in relation to an

accident dated 20.09.2017.

[17.3] Therefore, the notional income of house wife needs

to be considered keeping in mind multifarious services rendered

by her for the family; the expenses for cook service, maid

servant service, housekeeping expenses and keeping in mind

the savings accrued due to all these services. Even the

invaluable emotional support and the contribution of house wife

to her husband, children and in-laws, cannot be assessed in

terms of money. Thus, keeping in mind the above

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -15-

considerations, notional income of the deceased as housewife-

cum-seamstress could not be assessed less than Rs. 8,000/- per

month against an accident which took place on 21.06.2009.

QUESTION OF FUTURE PROSPECTS, MULTIPLIER AND DEDUCTION TOWARDS PERSONAL AND LIVING EXPENSES.

[18] Further, relying upon decision rendered by co-

ordinate bench of this Court in case of "Gurtej Singh Vs.

Gurnaib Singh" bearing FAO No. 1093 of 2019, no deduction is

liable to be made from notional income of housewife.

Furthermore, future prospects are required to be added to a

homemaker's notional income in view of the decision rendered

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Rajendra Singh and

Ors. Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others",

reported as 2020 (3) RCR CIVIL 26, whereby it was held that in

case of death of housewife claimants are liable to be granted

such benefit. Relevant excerpt thereof is reproduced hereunder:-

"11. ..........If the deceased had survived, in view of observations in Lata Wadhwa (supra), her skills as a matured and skilled housewife in contributing to the welfare and care of the family and in the upbringing of the children would have only been enhanced by time and for which reason we hold that the appellants shall be entitled to future prospects........"

Therefore, as per the age of the deceased, who was

around 50 years at the time of accident, 25% towards future

prospects and multiplier of 13 is applied.

FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M) -16-

QUESTION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER CONVENTIONAL HEADS

[19] In view of judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt.

Sarla Verma & Ors. Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.,

(2009)6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Co. Ltd. vs.

Pranay Sethi & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 680 and United India

Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur",

reported as (2021) 11 SCC 780, compensation awarded under

conventional heads is also required to be reassessed.

Accordingly, the claimants are entitled for Rs. 18,000/- as

compensation under the head of funeral expenses and Rs.

18,000/- towards loss of estate. Loss of consortium is to be

awarded to the tune of Rs. 96,000/- (Rs. 48,000 x 2) as

appellants/claimants are entitled for spousal and parental

consortium; but simultaneously, appellants/claimants are not

entitled for compensation on account of loss of love and

affection.

CONCLUSION [20] In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the

appellants/claimants shall be entitled for the grant of

compensation in the following manner:-

                           S.No.   Nature                                        Amount (in Rs.)
                           1.      Annual Income of Deceased                             96,000.00
                           2.      Add 25% future prospects                              24,000.00
                           3.      Net Income (Rs. 96,000/- + Rs. 24,000/-)             1,20,000.00
                           4.      Multiplier of 13 as per age of 50 years             15,60,000.00






                      FAO Nos. 4204, 4206 & 4207 of 2011 (O&M)                          -17-


                                 (Rs. 1,20,000 x 13)
                           5.    Funeral Expenses                                   18,000.00
                           6.    Loss of Estate                                     18,000.00
                           7.    Loss of Consortium (Rs. 48,000 x 2)                96,000.00
                                 Total Compensation                               16,92,000.00
                                 Amount Awarded by the Tribunal                    4,55,000.00
                                 Enhanced Amount                                  12,37,000.00



                                  Accordingly,      the    appellants/claimants     shall     be

entitled to receive above enhanced compensation in the

proportion already determined by the learned Tribunal.

[21] The grant of interest @ 6% per annum is not

equitable and just in view of the observations made by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Smt. Supe Dei and others vs.

National Insurance Company Limited and other, reported as

(2009) (4) SCC 513 approved in a subsequent judgment titled as

"Puttamma and others vs. K.L. Narayana Reddy and

another, 2014 (1) RCR (Civil) 443, thus, the interest is

enhanced to 9% per annum on the amount of compensation

awarded from the date of institution of claim petition till its

realization. In case the said amount is not paid within three