[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sanjeev Kumar vs Sudhir Kumar Etc. on 30 April, 2026
FAO No.2131 of 2002 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(217) FAO No.2131 of 2002 (O&M)
Date of decision:30.04.2026
SANJEEV KUMAR ... APPELLANT
VERSUS
SUDHIR KUMAR GULATI AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate,
for Appellant.
Mr. Shubham Gupta, Advocate,
Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for
respondent No.3/Insurance Company.
*****
VIRINDER AGGARWAL,J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking
enhancement of the compensation awarded vide award dated 10.10.2001 passed
by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, on account of the
injuries sustained by Sanjeev Kumar, in a motor vehicular accident.
BACKGROUND FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.1999 at about 9:45 p.m., the
appellant-claimant, Sanjeev Kumar, aged about 26 years, was driving his
Maruti car bearing registration No. CH-01-X-7407 from Sector 8 towards his
residence in Sector 44-D, Chandigarh, after dropping a friend. When he reached
the traffic light crossing of Sectors 8, 9, 17 and 18, an offending Maruti car
bearing registration No. CH-01-B-3998, driven by respondent No.1, Sudhir
Kumar Gulati, in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, came from
the side of Sector 18 and struck against the appellant's vehicle. As a result of
the said collision, the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture
of the right forearm. Subsequently, the appellant filed a claim petition under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the
learned Tribunal awarded a sum of ₹25,000/- along with interest at the rate of
9% per annum, holding the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the
said compensation.
CONTENTIONS
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate and does not
commensurate with the nature of injuries and suffering endured by the
appellant. It was argued that the learned Tribunal failed to award compensation
under various settled heads, including pain and suffering, loss of amenities,
transportation, attendant charges and special diet, and instead granted a meagre
lump sum of ₹25,000/-. It was further submitted that despite the appellant
having suffered permanent disability to the extent of 10%, no compensation
was awarded on that account. On these grounds, it was urged that the impugned
award deserves to be enhanced to ensure grant of just and reasonable
compensation in accordance with law.
4. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, while
supporting the impugned award, submitted that the learned Tribunal has
appreciated the evidence in its correct perspective and has passed the award
strictly in accordance with law. It was argued that the claim of injured appellant
has been duly considered, and the amounts awarded under various heads are
just, proper, and reasonable. It was further contended that no infirmity,
perversity, or misreading of evidence can be attributed to the conclusions
arrived at by the learned Tribunal so as to warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the complete
records. On due consideration of the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal,
particularly on the issue of negligence and fastening of liability, I find no reason
to take a different view. Those findings are accordingly affirmed. However, the
core issue arising in this appeal pertains to the reassessment of the quantum of
compensation.
6. For the purpose of reassessment of compensation, the primary issue that
arises for consideration is the extent of functional disability and its
consequential impact on the earning capacity of the appellant. In the present
case, the appellant-claimant sustained a fracture of the right forearm. Initially,
POP was applied at Government Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32,
Chandigarh. Subsequently, owing to impaired functioning of his fingers, he
underwent surgical intervention under Dr. Jain at Muzaffarnagar. The medical
evidence on record, particularly the testimony of Dr. Lalit Kaushal (PW-2),
establishes that the appellant has suffered 10% permanent disability, as reflected
in the disability certificate (Ex. P5). However, it is well settled that the
percentage of permanent physical disability is not synonymous with the loss of
earning capacity. What is required to be assessed is the functional disability, i.e.,
the extent to which the injury has affected the claimant's ability to earn his
livelihood. In the present case, the evidence indicates that the disability has had
a lasting and adverse impact on the appellant's efficiency in carrying on his
business, which involves performing physical activities. The impairment of the
right forearm and fingers would reasonably hinder dexterity, grip, and
coordination, thereby affecting his work performance. Even otherwise, merely
because the precise nature of the business carried on by the injured has not been
specifically pleaded, it cannot be inferred that the disability would have no
bearing on his earning capacity; rather, any occupation requiring normal use of
the upper limb would be adversely affected by such impairment. Despite this
material evidence, the learned Tribunal failed to undertake a proper assessment
of the loss of future earning capacity in light of the functional disability and
instead awarded a lump sum amount without applying the settled principles
governing such determination. The approach adopted by the learned Tribunal,
therefore, falls short of the standard required for awarding "just compensation"
under the law.
7. Upon a holistic reappraisal of the evidence, this Court is of the
considered view that although the physical disability has been assessed at 10%,
the same would have a direct bearing on the appellant's functional capacity,
particularly in his vocation. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating a
higher loss, the functional disability is reasonably assessed at 8% for the
purpose of computation. It is well settled that it is the functional impact of the
disability on the earning capacity and future prospects of the claimant which is
determinative. In this regard, reliance may be placed on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343,
wherein it has been authoritatively held that compensation towards loss of
future earnings must correspond to the actual diminution in earning capacity
resulting from the disability suffered.
8. In the present case, the injuries sustained by the appellant have a direct
and substantial bearing on his future efficiency, earning capacity, and overall
enjoyment of life, thereby entitling him to just and reasonable compensation
towards loss of future earning capacity. The appellant claimed to be self-
employed and produced an Income Tax Return marked as Mark 'A', which
reflects an annual income of ₹42,500/-. His testimony on the aspect of income
is clear, consistent, and has remained unrebutted, as the respondents neither led
any evidence to the contrary nor put any effective challenge to the said assertion
in cross-examination. As it is held in the case of Sebati Nath & Ors. v. Shriram
General Insurance Company Ltd. (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No.26253 of 2025)
8. We are inclined to interfere with the findings of the Courts below in
assessing the income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month as the
same was not assessed correctly on the basis of the evidence on
record. This Court in Chandra v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav1 , has held
that "In the absence of documentary evidence on record, some
guesswork is required to be done". Also, in the case of Prabhavathi v.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn2 ., this Court has held that:
"13. It is the settled law that under the Motor Vehicle Act,
1988 it is established that in compensation cases, the strict rules of
evidence used in criminal trials do not apply. Instead, the standard of
proof is based on the preponderance of probability. This Court in
Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC observed that:
"22. It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases,
once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the
accident, has been established, then the Tribunal's role would be to
calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken
place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and,
while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the
pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of
motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind
must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of
proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal
cases."
The exposition came to be reiterated in Rajwati alias Rajjo v. United
India Insurance Company Ltd., wherein it was observed that
"20. It is well settled that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a
beneficial piece of legislation and as such, while dealing with
compensation cases, once the actual occurrence of the accident has
been established, the Tribunal's role would be to award just and fair
compensation. As held by this Court in Sunita (Supra) and Kusum
Lata (Supra), strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial,
are not applicable in motor accident compensation cases i.e., to say,
"the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance
of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all
reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases."
.......emphasis supplied
9. It is well settled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
are summary in nature, and the determination of compensation is governed by
the principle of preponderance of probabilities, and not by the strict standards of
proof applicable to criminal trials. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
authoritatively held that where oral evidence regarding income and such
evidence remains uncontroverted, the Tribunal is bound to accept the same on
the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and the claim cannot be
rejected merely for want of documentary proof. Applying the aforesaid
principles to the facts of the present case, although the precise nature of the
business carried on by the appellant has not been specifically pleaded and
income from business may inherently fluctuate, the Income Tax Return (Mark
'A') coupled with the unrebutted oral testimony of the appellant provides a
reasonable and reliable basis for assessment of his income. A hyper-technical
approach in rejecting such evidence would defeat the beneficial object of the
legislation. Accordingly, taking a pragmatic and balanced view, the annual
income of the appellant is assessed at ₹42,500/-. The appellant was aged about
26 years at the time of the accident. Consequently, in view of the principles laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the loss of future income on account of
permanent functional disability is required to be computed accordingly.
Particulars Re-assessed (₹)
Monthly Income 284/-
(8% Functional Disability )
Monthly Income with Future Prospects 398/-
(40%) (284 + 114)
Annual Income 4,776/-
(398 × 12)
Loss of Future Income 81,192/-
(4,776 × 17)
10. Apart from loss of future earning capacity, the claimant is also entitled to
just compensation under other pecuniary and non-pecuniary heads. The
principles governing such assessment have been authoritatively laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (supra). In the
present case, from the evidence on record, including the treatment at GMCH
Sector 32, operation at Muzaffarnagar, prescriptions and the appellant's
deposition, it is evident that he underwent prolonged treatment and suffered
grievous injuries resulting in 10% permanent disability with complications.
Considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment, pain and suffering, and
the long-term impact on the appellant's lifestyle and earning capacity, this Court
is of the view that the lump sum compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
is on the lower side and warrants enhancement. Accordingly, the claimant is
held entitled to the following amounts:
Particulars Re-assessed (₹)
Loss of income during 15,000/-
Hospitalisation and treatment
Medical expenses 10,000/-
Transportation 5,000/-
Special Diet 10,000
Loss of amenities 10,000/-
Attendant 15,000/-
Pain and suffering 15,000/-
Total ₹80,000/-
Total Compensation
11. Thus, the total compensation payable to the claimant is reassessed as
under:
Particulars Amount (₹)
Loss of Future Income ₹81,192/-
Other Heads ₹80,000/-
Total ₹1,61,192/-
12. In view of the above, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned
award dated 10.10.2001 is modified to the extent that the compensation payable
to the appellant is enhanced from 25,000/- to ₹1,61,192/-. The enhanced
amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition till realization. Except for the modification of the quantum
of compensation, all other findings recorded by the learned Tribunal, including
those with regard to negligence, liability and mode of disbursement, shall stand
affirmed.
13. Since the main case has been decided, pending miscellaneous
application(s), if any, stands also disposed of.
(VIRINDER AGGARWAL)
30.04.2026 JUDGE
Poonam
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable : Yes/No
