[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Chander vs Billu @ Bal Mukand And Ors. on 18 April, 2026

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M)

RAM CHANDER
......... Appellant
VERSUS

BILLU @ BAL MUKAND AND OTHERS
..... Respondents

1. Judgment reserved on 12.02.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 18.04.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 20.04.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is
pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full
pronounced.
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full
judgment and reason thereof. -Nil-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR

Argued by : Mr. Sahil Gupta, Advocate
for the appellant.

Mr. Vinod Gupta, Advocate
for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

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

1. This appeal has been instituted against the Award dated

17.07.2002 passed by MACT, Rewari (for short "Tribunal") for

enhancement of compensation awarded in MACT Case No.253 of

08.01.2001 in a petition under Sections 163/166 of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 vide which a sum of Rs. 2,59,443/- 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

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -2-

accident on account of rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1,

while driving offending vehicle bearing No.HR-34-5046 (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 ld. MACT:

1. Whether the accident in question resulting in injuries to petitioner was caused because of rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. HR-34/5046 by its driver respondent No. 1? OPP

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding any valid and effective driving license at the time of alleged accident? OPR No.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.2,59,443/- 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. Along with the appeal claimant has moved an application

bearing No.CM-12629-CII-2019 for leading additional evidence under

Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with the averments that he had joined CRPF on

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -3-

04.10.1980 and he had to take premature retirement on 31.10.2001 due to

disability caused by the accident. One Bhim Singh had also joined CRPF

on 25.11.1980 on the same post and he retired on 30.04.2016. Before

31.12.2015, appellant was drawing basic pension of Rs.4,030/- per month

and after the 7th Pay Commission, he is drawing pension @ Rs.13,353/-

per month as per letter dated 28.02.2018 (Annexure A-1) whereas his

colleague Bhim Singh, who retired in ordinary course is drawing pension

of Rs.30,084/- per month. Appellant is thus suffering loss of pension by

Rs.16,731/- per month. Besides this, at the time of retirement, appellant

had received a service gratuity of Rs.74,741/- as shown in his pension

book Annexure A-3 whereas Bhim Singh has received gratuity of

Rs.9,10,800/- as shown in his pension book Annexure A-4. At the time of

retirement, employee of the Central Government gets leave encashment

which is equivalent to his salary of 10 months i.e. 300 days but appellant

had only received leave encashment of 52 days. Appellant had remained

admitted in the hospital during treatment from 02.07.2000 to 11.03.2001,

as also observed by the Tribunal and as such, he has received less leave

encashment. These documents Annexures A-1 to A-5 are necessary for

just and effective disposal of the appeal and he may be permitted to lead

these documents by way of additional evidence.

7. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company has filed reply and has

opposed the same. It is submitted that the pension profile of said Bhim

Singh is of no consequence. Appellant had sought retirement of his own

request after putting in minimum pensionable service and he is not

entitled to lead the additional evidence.

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -4-

8. In the present case, the claimant had suffered injuries in an

accident and as per disability certificate, he had suffered 29% permanent

disability on account of injury on his left hip joint. The Orthopaedic

Surgeon at the CRPF Group Centre found him to be unfit for combat duty

and he sought premature retirement with effect from 31.10.2001, and as

such, he is drawing his pension as was admissible to him in view of his

length of service. He cannot derive any benefit from the fact that another

employee serving in CRPF has served till the age of superannuation and

is drawing more pension or has received a higher amount of gratuity and

encashment of earned leave and claimant cannot claim parity with the

said employee namely Bhim Singh as he worked in the CRPF till the age

of superannuation and he is drawing pension on account of the past

services rendered by him whereas claimant had taken premature

retirement and has not served the organization till the age of

superannuation and has thus put in less years of service. The evidence

sought to be led is thus not at all essential for just decision of the case and

the application in hand is meritless and the same is ordered to be

dismissed.

9. In present appeal, the only issue required to be determined

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

regarding the manner of accident are not required to be reproduced in

detail, as the Tribunal has already held under issue No. 1 that the accident

had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of

respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle and respondents

were held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally. No appeal or

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -5-

cross-objections have been filed by respondents, challenging the said

finding and accordingly finding on issue No. 1 is not required to be

interfered with and the same is affirmed.

10. 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.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the impugned

award is based on conjectures and surmises. The facts of the case and

evidence on file have not been appreciated in the correct perspective and

Tribunal has gravely erred in awarding meagre compensation of

Rs.2,59,443/-. Learned counsel contended that the claimant was serving

as Head Constable in CRPF and was drawing a monthly salary of

Rs.6627/- as proved from his salary certificate Ex.PW6/A. He has

suffered 29% permanent disability and on account of his permanent

disability, he was not found fit to be retained in service and was

prematurely retired on 01.11.2001. Learned Tribunal computed monthly

loss of income @ Rs.1150/- per month and applied multiplier of 15 while

awarding compensation for loss of income due to permanent disability

whereas claimant had lost his job and his earning capability has

diminished by 100%. Learned counsel further contended that meagre

compensation has been awarded for pain and sufferings, transportation

charges and attendant charges. Learned counsel next contended that on

account of injuries suffered by him, the appellant had to avail 243 days of

earned leave which he would have got encashed and he has thus suffered

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -6-

loss of income on account of availing of earned leaves but no

compensation has been awarded for loss of earned leaves of around eight

months and learned counsel prayed that the compensation be suitably

enhanced and the award be modified. 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.

12. 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.

13. Learned Tribunal on the basis of evidence led on file has

held that the salary of the claimant was Rs.6,627/- as per salary certificate

Ex.PW6/A, which has been proved by PW6 ASI Satish Kumar, who was

working in the office of ADIG Group Centre CRPF, Gurgaon. He has

also deposed that claimant was enlisted in CRPF as a Constable on

04.10.1989. He was promoted as Lance Naik on 02.05.1991, as Naik on

30.10.1994 and as Head Constable on 02.05.1995. The claimant was

declared unfit for combat duty by Dr. Deepak Mahapatra, CMO,

Orthopedic of Group Centre Hospital, CRPF, Gurgaon on 14.03.2001 and

then claimant took premature retirement from service on 01.11.2001 due

to the injuries suffered by him.

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -7-

14. To prove the injuries, claimant deposed that he was taken to

CHC Mahendergarh after the accident from where he was sent to PGIMS,

Rohtak. He tendered the MLR Ex.PD, which shows that he was admitted

at CHC Mahendergarh on 02.07.2002 at 3.10 PM and had suffered five

injuries on his person. The discharge card Ex.P12 further shows that he

was admitted at PGIMS, Rohtak on 02.07.2002 and was discharged on

15.08.2002. Ex.P13 to Ex.15 are the OPD cards of the claimant issued by

PGIMS, Rohtak. To prove disability, claimant had examined PW5 Dr.

Ashok Saini, Medical Officer, who deposed that on 16.01.2002, claimant

appeared before Medical Board and the board assessed his disability to be

29% on account of post-traumatic stiffness of left hip joint with partial

loss of stability with shortening and he tendered the original disability

certificate Ex.PC.

15. As such, from the evidence led on file, it is established that

claimant had suffered grievous injuries in his hip joint and there was

shortening of leg. It is pertinent to mention that the record of the Tribunal

has got burnt in a fire incident in the High Court and the complete copy

of the award is not legible and it cannot be ascertained as to how much

compensation has been awarded under the heads "pain and sufferings,

medical expenses, transportation charges and attendant charges" but total

compensation of Rs.2,59,443/- has been awarded which includes a sum

of Rs.2,07,000/- as loss of income on account of permanent disability.

However, in view of the severity of the injuries suffered by the claimant,

it can be presumed that it must have taken at least six months for the

injuries to heal and even as per testimony of PW6, claimant remained on

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -8-

leave from 02.07.2000 to 31.12.2000, 12.02.2001 to 15.05.2001,

24.09.2001 to 29.09.2001, 01.01.2001 and 14.02.2001 to 11.03.2001. As

such, claimant remained on leave most of the time during the period of

treatment. It is a matter of common knowledge that such injuries take a

long time to heal and pain component is also enormous and in view of the

gravity and severity of the injuries, claimant is held entitled to a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- on account of "pain and sufferings".

16. The Tribunal has held that the monthly income of the

claimant was Rs.6,627/- and that compensation on account of permanent

disability has been assessed to the extent of 29% of the loss of income

and thereafter, multiplier of 15 has been applied and a sum of

Rs.2,07,000/- has been assessed as compensation for loss of income due

to permanent disability. As argued by learned counsel for appellant, the

claimant had to leave his job and he has suffered 100% loss of income

and his functional disability thus should be taken as 100% and thereafter

future prospects should be added and after applying suitable multiplier,

adequate compensation should be assessed on account of loss of income

due to permanent disability.

17. However, I do not find any force in the contentions raised by

learned counsel for the appellant. The claimant had himself sought

premature retirement and he was retired from CRPF on his own request.

It is not his case that he was retired prematurely by the CRPF on account

of his unfitness to continue in the said job. It is probable that he could

have been given some light duty within the organization due to his

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -9-

disability and he would thus not have suffered any loss of income. As

such, the compensation to be awarded on account of loss of income due

to permanent disability has to be assessed by taking into consideration the

percentage of disability and the extent to which his earning capability has

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.

18. 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).

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -10-

(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

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

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

19. In the present case, the claimant has suffered 29% permanent

disability on account of post-traumatic stiffness of left hip joint with

partial loss of stability with shortening. In these circumstances, the

claimant will have difficulty in walking, running and sitting and will not

be able to lift any weight. 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.

20. Claimant was 40 years of age on the date of accident and

was a permanent government employee. Accordingly, 50% 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.9,940/- per month (Rs.6,627/- + Rs.3,313/-).

21. Claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of

29% and the monthly loss of income will thus come to Rs.2,882.6/-

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -11-

(Rs.9,940/- X 29%) (rounded off to Rs.2,883/-) and 'annual loss of

income' will come out to Rs.34,596/- per annum (i.e. Rs.2,883/- X 12).

22. 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.5,18,940/- (Rs.34,596/- X 15) on account of 'loss of income' due to

permanent disability.

23. The claimant remained on leave for around eight months and

he availed earned leaves and during this period, he suffered loss of

income as he could have got the earned leave encashed at the time of his

retirement. However, his income has been held to be Rs.6,627/- per

month and accordingly, he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.53,016/-

(Rs.6,627/- x 8) on account of 'loss of income during the period of

treatment'.

24. During the period of treatment of eight months, claimant

must have engaged an attendant to look after him and he is accordingly

held entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- for "engaging an attendant".

25. The claimant was under treatment for about eight months

and huge amount must have been spent on transportation and he is

accordingly held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the 'expenses

incurred on transportation'.

26. During the period of treatment, claimant must have spent

huge amount on special diet and he is thus held entitled to a sum of

Rs.20,000/- under this head.

FAO-4627-2002 (O&M) -12-

27. The Tribunal under the four heads of pain and sufferings,

medical expenses, transportation charges and attendant charges has

awarded a sum of Rs.52,443/- as compensation and out of this amount,

around Rs.25,000/- must have been awarded on account of expenses

incurred on treatment. Bills Ex.P16 to Ex.P48 were tendered in evidence

but details of the amount spent against these bills is not available and

accordingly, claimant is held entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/- on account

of expenses incurred on treatment.

28. The claimant has suffered 29% of disability on account of

post-traumatic stiffness of left hip joint with partial loss of stability with

shortening, which will remain with him throughout his life and as such,

he is held entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of 'loss of

amenities'.

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

assessed as under:-

                        Sr. No.                         Head                   This Court (₹)
                               1.   Medical Expenses                      Rs.25,000/-
                               2.   Permanent disability                  Rs.5,18,940/-

                               3.   Pain & suffering                      Rs.1,00,000/-
                               4.   Transportation charges                Rs.20,000/-
                               5.   Loss of income (treatment)            Rs.53,016/-

                               6.   Special diet                          Rs.20,000/-
                               7.   Attendant Charges                     Rs.30,000/-
                               8.   Loss of amenities                     Rs.20,000/-
                                    Total                                 Rs.7,86,956/-
                                    Interest                              9%







                      FAO-4627-2002 (O&M)                           -13-

30. 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.5,27,513/- (Rs.7,86,956/- - Rs.2,59,443/-) (rounded

off to Rs.5,28,000/-) over and above the compensation awarded by

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.08.01.2001, till realization.

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

award to the respondent Insurance Company in terms of directions issued

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

titled Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Versus Union of

India and others, decided on 16.03.2021 and Insurance Company shall