[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satbir @ Satveer vs Shaitan Singh And Others on 12 January, 2026
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 11.12.2025
Pronounced on:12.01.2026
Uploaded on: 12.01.2026
1. FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
SATBIR @ SATVEER ....Appellant
Vs.
SHAITAN SINGH AND OTHERS .....Respondents
AND
2. FAO-3526-2019 (O&M)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. .....Appellant
Vs.
SATBIR @ SATVEER AND OTHERS .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant
in FAO-2180-2019 and for
respondent No. 1 in FAO-3526-2019.
Mr. Satpal Dhamija, Advocate for the appellant
in FAO-3526-2019 and for respondent No. 3
in FAO-2180-2019.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
1. Vide this common judgment, the above noted two appeals, bearing
FAO No. 2180 of 2019 and FAO No. 3526 of 2019 impugning the award dated
05.12.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, S.A.S. Nagar
1 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --2--
(hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), shall be disposed of. For convenience,
facts are being taken from FAO No. 2180 of 2019.
FACTS
2. The appellant, being injured filed a claim petition before the learned
Tribunal praying for grant of compensation on account of injuries suffered by him
in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 07.02.2018 while alleging rash
and negligent driving of respondent No.1/driver.
3. After going through the claim petition and evaluating the evidence led
by both the parties, learned Tribunal vide award dated 05.12.2018, arrived at a
conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of
respondent No.1 and awarded compensation in the following manner:-
S.No. Heads of Claim Amount (in Rs.)
1. Income Rs. 8,000/-
2. Deduction Nil
3. 25% Future Prospects Rs.2,000/-
5. Functional Disability 100%
6. Loss of Future Earning (10,000 x 12 x 13) Rs. 15,60,000
7. Medical Bills Rs. 11,877/-
8. Artificial Limb (including maintenance & Rs. 4,00,000/-
replacement)
9. Pain & Suffering Rs. 60,000/-
10. Transportation Nil
11. Special Diet Rs. 40,000/-
12. Attendant Charges Rs. 40,000/-
13. Loss of Amenities Nil
14. Loss of expectation of life Nil
15. Future Medical Expenses Rs. 2,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 23,11,877/-
2 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --3--
4. It is the said award dated 05.12.2018 which has been challenged by way
of present two appeals.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT/CLAIMANT.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant assailed the award while
submitting that in the given facts, the compensation awarded by the learned
Tribunal was on the lower side. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal
gravely erred in assessing the monthly income of the appellant @ Rs. 8,000/-,
despite unrebutted evidence establishing that the appellant was earning about Rs.
15,000/- per month by playing Punjabi Dhol at functions and working as labourer.
He further submitted that the application of multiplier of 13 was erroneous, as the
appellant was 45 years of age at the time of accident and the appropriate multiplier
of 14 ought to have been applied. Furthermore, it was submitted that the
compensation awarded under various heads such as permanent disability, medical
expenses (past and future), pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life was
grossly inadequate, considering the prolonged hospitalization, multiple surgeries,
continued treatment and the lifelong hardship suffered by the appellant. Therefore,
learned counsel prayed that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be
enhanced, as per latest decisions on the subject.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent No.3-Insurance
Company, vehemently contended that the learned Tribunal erred in treating 80%
permanent disability of the left limb as 100% functional disability of the whole
body, resulting in unjustified and excessive award towards loss of future earnings,
contrary to the settled law. He further submitted that the learned Tribunal fell into
3 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --4--
grave error in awarding Rs. 4,00,000/- towards artificial limb and Rs. 2,00,000/-
towards future medical expenses on mere presumption, despite there being no
proof of actual expenditure and clear evidence on record indicating a much lower
assessed cost. The learned counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that the
impugned award was highly excessive and contended that the learned Tribunal fell
into error while awarding a whopping sum of Rs. 23,11,877/- as compensation and
as such the same was liable to be set aside.
DISCUSSION
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-books
of the appeals as well. I find force in the arguments advanced by learned Counsel
for the appellant/claimant.
8. Before determining the quantum of compensation, it is essential to draw
guidance from the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in similar
cases. In Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar and Ors. reported as (2011) 1 SCC 343 the
Hon'ble Court laid down the heads under which compensation is to be awarded for
personal injuries. Relevant paragraph No. 6 therefore being relevant is extracted
hereunder:-
"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;
4 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --5--
(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".
ON THE ASPECT OF ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION
ASSESSMENT UNDER "LOSS OF INCOME"
9. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellant/claimant was 45 years of
age at the time of the accident and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month by playing
Punjabi Dhol at functions and working as labourer. However, the learned Tribunal
assessed the monthly income of the appellant/claimant @ Rs. 8,000/- per month in
the absence of documentary evidence on record. 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 account to help the cause of the
appellant. Relevant para from this judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
5 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --6--
"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 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."
9.1 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 be totally detached from reality.
Merely because claimants were unable to produce documentary
6 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --7--
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......"
9.2 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.
11,000/- per month (Rs. 366.66 per day). Now, as per the statement of
appellant/claimant who appeared as PW2, he remained in hospital from 08.02.2018
to 11.02.2018 i.e. 4 days and as such loss of income suffered by him during the
said period is assessed as Rs. 1466.64/- (366.66 x 4). Further, evidently the motor
vehicular accident in the present case took place on 07.02.2018 and the
appellant/claimant must have been bed-ridden for 6 months because of amputation
of his left leg above knee, after the accident. Thus, it would be safe to assume that
the appellant would have suffered loss of income for 6 months due to reduced
working capacity. Therefore, after considering facts and circumstances of the
present case, loss of income for the said period is conservatively assessed @ Rs.
65,998.8/- (366.66 x 180) rounded off to Rs. 66,000/-. Furthermore, though, the
appellant/claimant has suffered 80% disability, yet it being a case of amputation of
left leg above knee it would be just and fair if the future loss of income/functional
disability is assessed @ 80%, considering the fact that the said amputation would
render the appellant/claimant incapable of standing for extended periods of time.
Additionally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of "Pappu Deo Yadav v.
Naresh Kumar" reported as 2020 INSC 553 held that in cases where a claimant
7 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --8--
suffers permanent disability due to a motor vehicle accident, compensation may be
awarded not only for the future loss of income but also towards future prospects.
9.3 A perusal of record shows that the age of appellant/claimant at the time of
accident was 45 years. The computation of future prospects is to be done as per the
law laid down by a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi" reported as (2017) 16 SCC 680 para 59.3,
which records the conclusion in this regard, reads as under:-
"59.3 While determining income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the
income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a
permanent job and was below the age of 40 years should be made. The addition
should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case
the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.
Actual salary should read as actual salary less tax."
9.4 In view of the above discussion, the appellant/claimant in addition to the
loss of future earnings, shall also be entitled to compensation for loss of future
prospects @ 25%. Therefore, the income of the appellant/claimant after adding
future prospects be taken @ Rs. 13,750/- (11,000 + 2,750) per month for the
purpose of calculation of compensation. Accordingly, this Court finds that the
compensation payable for the functional disability to the extent of 80% is assessed
@ Rs. 18,48,000/- (13,750 x 12 x 14 x 80/100).
ASSESSMENT UNDER "MEDICAL EXPENSES/HOSPITALIZATION"
10. In the present case, the appellant/claimant suffered disability to the
extent of 80% of the left leg due to amputation, which has been established from
the disability certificate proved on record as Ex.PW2/F by Dr. Sanjeev Kamboj,
Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phase-6, Mohali who appeared as PW-3. The
8 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --9--
appellant/claimant has also proved on record medical bills Ex.P1 to Ex.P19, which
shows that the appellant/claimant had paid an amount of Rs. 11,877/- on his
treatment. Therefore, keeping in mind the cost factor prevalent at the time of motor
vehicular accident and the 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, though, total bills proved are for
Rs.11,877/- yet in the humble opinion of this Court, compensation under this head
is assessed as Rs. 50,000/-.
So far as the artificial limb is concerned, the appellant/claimant has
examined PW1, Ishwar Singh, Associate Rehabilitation Services, Ottobock Health
Care India Pvt. Ltd., who deposed that the appellant/claimant was the case of left
above knee amputation and required knee prosthesis and thus suggested his left
above knee prosthesis for his left leg costing Rs. 3,30,750/- including all expenses
and this witness proved on record the fitment proposal of artificial leg as
Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that after the fitment of the artificial leg, the patient
requires annual maintenance for the above said fitment annually, which costs
around Rs. 12,000/- per annum. In these circumstances, in the humble opinion of
this Court, compensation under the head of future medical expenses is assessed as
Rs. 8,00,000/-.
ON THE ASPECT OF PAIN AND SUFFERINGS
11. 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
9 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --10--
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."
11.1 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 grievous injuries,
namely a mangled left lower limb, culminating in amputation with a closed stump.
More than that, Dr. Sanjeev Kamboj, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Phase-6,
Mohali who appeared as PW-3 proved on record the disability certificate as
Ex.PW2/F, as per which, the appellant/claimant was found to be having 80%
permanent disability. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- is awarded under the head of pain and sufferings.
ASSESSMENT UNDER OTHER 'PECUNIARY HEADS'
10 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --11--
12. Admittedly, the injured was bed ridden for 6 months as he was operated
upon and would have definitely gone for his post-operative care. However, learned
Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation under the head of special diet,
conveyance charges and attendant charges. Therefore, compensation granted under
these heads is reassessed @ Rs. 2,00,000/.
CONCLUSION
13. 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 (Rs. 1,466.64+ Rs. Rs. 19,15,466.64
66,000 + Rs. 18,48,000)
2. Medical Expenses/Hospitalization Rs. 8,50,000/-
(50,000 + 8,00,000)
3. Compensation under other pecuniary Rs. 2,00,000/-
head
4. Compensation under pain and sufferings Rs. 5,00,000/-
Total Compensation Rs. 34,65,466.64
Amount Awarded by the Tribunal Rs. 23,11,877/-
Enhanced Amount Rs. 11,53,589.64/-
14. The grant of interest @ 7.5% 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 to the
claimants from the date of institution of claim petition till its realization. In case
the said amount is not paid within three months, the same shall be payable
11 of 12
FAO-2180-2019 (O&M)
and FAO-3526-2019 (O&M) --12--
thereafter along with 12% interest from the expiry of period of three months from
today. Needless to mention here that the amount of compensation already paid to
the claimant shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
15. Accordingly, the appeal filed at the instance of appellant/respondent-
Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal filed at the instance of
appellants/claimants is disposed of with the aforesaid modification of the award
passed by the learned Tribunal.
16. Pending miscellaneous applications(s) if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(HARKESH MANUJA)
January 12, 2026 JUDGE
sonika
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
12 of 12
