[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir Singh Yadav vs Mukesh Kumar & Ors. on 18 April, 2026
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
FAO-6504-2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-6504-2010 (O&M)
Satbir Singh Yadav ......Appellant
Vs.
Mukesh Kumar and ors. ......Respondents
Date of Reserve: 17.04.2026
Date of Pronouncement: 18.04.2026
Uploaded on:-28.04.2026
Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No
Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Ms. Bhumika Khatri, Advocate for
Mr. Ram Darshan Yadav, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. Amrit Singh Kang, Advocate
for respondent No. 4-Insurance Co.
*****
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated
27.07.2010 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (for
short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation granted to the claimant to
the tune of Rs.5,82,455/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, on account of
injury suffered by her 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 and is skipped herein for the
sake of brevity.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side and deserves
to be enhanced. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and the
compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant be enhanced, as per latest law.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4-Insurance
Company, however, vehemently argues on the lines of the award and contends that
the amount of compensation as assessed by learned Tribunal, has rightly been
granted to the appellant/claimant. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present
appeal.
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.
(c) The third and the last aspect is the interest rate 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 cent Rs.4,90,989/-
addition)
Medical expenses including Rs.18,46,864/-
transport charges,
nourishment, etc.
Loss of matrimonial prospects Rs.5,00,000/-
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 award reveals that the appellant/claimant was stated
to be 45 years of age, and further stated himself to be practicing Advocate but no
documentary evidence was placed on record to prove any income from the said
profession. Furthermore, the claimant/appellant has also stated that he is not an
income tax payee.
10. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has erred in assessing the income
of the claimant at a notional sum of Rs. 5,000/- per month, as it failed to properly
appreciate that the claimant was a practicing advocate. The Tribunal overlooked
the nature of the legal profession, where income may not always be supported by
formal documentary evidence. Being a qualified and practicing advocate, the
earning of claimant capacity ought to have been assessed on a reasonable and
realistic basis, taking into account prevailing professional standards, rather than
adopting a minimal notional income. The impugned assessment is therefore
arbitrary and contrary to settled principles governing determination of income in
such cases.
11. In view of the totality of the circumstances, the monthly income of
the claimant/appellant is reasonably reassessed at Rs.20,000/- per month for the
purpose of computation of just and fair compensation.
12. A further perusal of the record shows that the learned Tribunal has
awarded the meager amount under the head of Pain and suffering, which is
required to be enhanced.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'KS Muralidhar versus R
Subbulakshmi and another 2024 INSC 886 highlighted the intangible but
devastating consequence of pain and suffering. The relevant portion of the same is
reproduce 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. Therefore, in view of the above judgment and facts and
circumstances of the present case, this Court deems it appropriate to grant
compensation of One lakh under the heads of pain and suffering.
15. A further perusal of the award reveals that the learned Tribunal has
awarded Rs.60,000/- to the appellant/claimant on account of his disability. This
amount has rightly been granted by the learned Tribunal as a separate head from
the loss of future income, therefore, this amount has rightly been awarded and no
interference is warranted in this regard. Reliance on this question of law can be
placed upon the judgment of Apex Court titled as Kavin vs. P. Sreemani Devi,
(SC) 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."
16. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the medical
expenditure of the claimant/appellant to the tune of Rs.3,37,453/-, therefore this
does not require any interference by this Court.
17. Furthermore, the learned Tribunal has gravely erred while assessing the
compensation of the claimant in as much as learned Tribunal neither applied the
appropriate multiplier nor added future prospects to the income of the claimant,
which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Therefore, 25% future prospects is
to be awarded to the claimant-appellant and multiplier of 14 is to be applied, as per
settled law.
18. Furthermore, the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal under the
heads of attendant charges, transportation and special diet are on the lower side.
Accordingly, the impugned award warrants interference and indulgence of this Court
for appropriate enhancement of compensation.
RELIEF
19. In view of the above, the present appeal is allowed and award dated
22.07.2010 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. Heads Compensation Awarded
No.
1 Income Rs.20,000/-
2 Loss of future prospects Rs.5000/- (25% of Rs.20000/-)
(25%)
3 Annual Income Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.25000 X 12)
4 Loss of future earning on Rs.90000/- (Rs.3,00,000/- X
account of 30% disability 30%)
5 Multiplier of 14 Rs.12,60,000/- (Rs.90000/-X 14)
6 Medical Expenses Rs.3,37,453/-
7 Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
8. Attendant Charges Rs.30,000/-
9 Disability Rs.60,000/-
10 Special Diet Rs.30,000/-
11 Total compensation Rs.18,17,453/-
awarded:-
12 Deduction:- Rs.5,82,455/-
Amount awarded by Tribunal
Enhanced amount of Rs.12,34,998 /-
compensation (18,17,453- 5,82,455)
20. 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 Nadu State Transport Corporation (2022) 5
Supreme Court Cases 107, the 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.
21. Respondent 4-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 date of 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/appellant. The claimant/appellant is directed to furnish
his bank account details to the Tribunal.
22. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
JUDGE
18.04.2026
Gaurav Arora
Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
