[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashwani Gandhi vs Pritpal Singh on 31 January, 2026
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO-4242-2001 (O&M)
ASHWANI GANDHI
...... APPELLANT
VERSUS
PRITPAL SINGH AND OTHERS
..... RESPONDENTS
1. Judgment reserved on 22.01.2026
2. Judgment pronounced on 31.01.2026
3. Judgment uploaded on 31.01.2026
4. Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full
pronounced or whether the full judgment is
pronounced.
5. The delay, if any of the pronouncement of full No
judgment and reason thereof.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR
Argued by : Mr.Pavan Malik, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. D.R. Bansal, Advocate
for respondent No.3-National Insurance Co. Ltd.
****
YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR, J. (Oral)
1. The present appeal has been instituted by the appellant
(hereinafter referred to as petitioner) against the award dated
09.05.2001 passed by MACT Gurgaon, vide which a sum of ₹2,00,000/-
has been awarded as compensation on account of injuries suffered by him
in a motor vehicular accident on account of rash and negligent driving on
1 of 7
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -2-
the part of respondent No.1 while driving offending vehicle bearing
No.DL-4-CF-7375, which was owned by respondent No.2 and insured
with respondent No.3. All the respondents were held liable to pay
compensation jointly and severally.
2. Case of the petitioner is that on 20.10.1999, he was going on
his scooter bearing No.HR-26-G-8935 to his house in DLF Colony,
Gurgaon. At about 6:45 P.M., when he reached near Atlas Crossing on
National Highway No.8, one person, namely, Bhola was pulling a
rickshaw in front of his scooter. In the meanwhile, offending vehicle
bearing No.DL-4-CF-7375, came from behind which was being driven by
respondent No.1 at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and it
hit his scooter from behind and the scooter further hit the rickshaw due to
which he as well as rickshaw puller suffered injuries and the scooter was
also damaged. The petitioner who suffered grievous injuries was taken to
Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon for treatment. He was 43 years of age and was
working as Inspector with Central Excise and Customs Gurgaon and
drawing ₹12,800/- per month as salary. He suffered fractures on lower
portion of right leg and on upper portion of right arm and he was operated
upon at Kalyani Hospital, where he remained admitted from 20.10.1999
to 26.10.1999. He had spent a sum of ₹50,000/- on his treatment and was
advised to take bed rest for five months by the doctor. The wife of
petitioner was working with Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan and getting a
monthly salary of ₹8,300/- and she had to remain on leave from
21.10.1999 to 20.01.2000, as her attendant. He had also spent huge sum
on special diet and on physiotherapy and he has also been advised to
2 of 7
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -3-
undergo surgery in future. He has also spent ₹12,000/- for repair of his
scooter and needs ₹30,000/- for his future treatment.
3. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement have
opposed the petition on the grounds of cause of action and locus standi. It
has been denied that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving
on the part of respondent No.1. The material contents of the claim
petition have been refuted and dismissal of the same was sought.
4. Respondent No.3-National Insurance Company Ltd., filed
separate written statement and took an objection that respondent No.1
was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of
accident. The petition is also bad for non-joinder of the insurer of the
scooter and dismissal of the claim petition was sought.
5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
framed:
"1. Whether the motor vehicle accident that took place on
20.10.99 is an outcome of rash and negligent driving
of card No. DL-4CF-7375 by respondent No.1? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for
the injuries he suffered in the aforesaid accident. If so,
in what amount? OPP
3. Whether respondent No.3 is entitled repudiate the
contract of insurance on to the grounds alleged? OPP
4. Relief"
6. Both the parties led evidence in support of their case.
7. After hearing the parties, learned Tribunal held under Issue
3 of 7
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -4-
No.1 that the accident in question had taken place due to the rash and
negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 while driving the
offending vehicle which resulted in injuries to petitioner and awarded a
sum of ₹2,00,000 /- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred by
the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
gone through the material on record.
10. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the finding
on issue No.1 has not been assailed by the respondents as neither the
owner and driver nor the Insurance Company has filed any appeal or
cross-objections to challenge the Award. Resultantly, the finding on issue
No.1 has gone unassailed and is affirmed. It is accordingly, held that the
accident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the
part of respondent No.1 while driving the offending vehicle.
11. To prove the injuries suffered by the petitioner, he has
examined PW1 Dr. Subhash Khanna, who deposed that petitioner was
brought to Kalyani Hospital on 20.10.1999, with the history of road
accident. The petitioner had sustained injuries/fractures in his right arm
and right leg. Thereafter, he was operated upon and discharged from the
hospital and was declared fit to join his duties on 18.03.2000. As such,
from the testimony of PW1 Dr. Subhash Khanna, it is established that
petitioner had suffered fractures in his right leg and right arm and he was
4 of 7
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -5-
operated upon. Thereafter, he remained under treatment for about 4
months. Learned Tribunal awarded him a sum of ₹20,000/- as
compensation on account of 'pain and sufferings'. However, in my
considered opinion, the compensation under the said head is grossly
inadequate. It is well-known that pain component in such type of injuries
is enormous as he had undergone surgery as well and such injuries take a
long time to heal. Accordingly, petitioner is held entitled to a sum of
₹35,000/- as compensation under the head 'pain and sufferings'.
12. Regarding medical expenses incurred during the treatment,
learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of ₹40,000/-. A sum of ₹28,475/-
was incurred at Kalyani Hospital and besides this, it was also held that
petitioner had spent another sums of ₹3,800/- and ₹7,100/- for purchase
of medicines etc. vide bills Ex.P17 to Ex.P27. All the bills relied upon by
the claimant have been taken into consideration while assessing the
amount of compensation under the head "expenses incurred on
treatment", and there is thus no reason to take a contrary view.
13. Petitioner has claimed that he was working as Inspector with
Central Excise and Customs, Gurgaon and was drawing ₹12,300/- per
month as salary. As per his version, he remained on leave for 5 months
and he had to waste his earned leave on account of this accident which he
could have otherwise got encashed. Learned Tribunal held that petitioner
has not summoned any record to establish his salary to be ₹12,300/- per
month but still, the learned Tribunal assessed his salary to be ₹10,000/-
per month and awarded a sum of ₹50,000/- as compensation for loss of
income due to availing of earned leaves which too is not on lower side
5 of 7
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -6-
and he has been duly compensated in this regard. No interference in the
compensation under the said head of loss of income is also thus made out.
14. Besides this, as per version of petitioner, his wife also
remained on earned leave for 3½ months, who was getting ₹8,316/- per
month as salary and learned Tribunal awarded him another sum of
₹29,000/- as compensation on account of loss of salary suffered by his
wife being his attendant and under this head also, he has been duly
compensated and no interference is called for.
15. Petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of
22.5% as per disability certificate Ex.P28 which has been proved on file
by PW4 Dr. Akhlak Ahmad, who was member of the Board which
assessed his disability. However, petitioner was a permanent Government
employee serving with the Central Government and as such, his earning
capability has not diminished on account of permanent disability suffered
by him and petitioner thus is not entitled to compensation on account of
"loss of income due to permanent disability". However, petitioner was
awarded a sum of ₹50,000/- as compensation on account of permanent
disability suffered by him which in my opinion is slightly on lower side
and same is liable to be enhanced to ₹60,000/- on account of 'loss of
amenities and due to permanent disability'. Besides this, petitioner has
been awarded a sum of ₹11,000/- on account of conveyance charges and
special diet. However, it has come in evidence that petitioner remained
under treatment and bed-ridden for 5 months and he must have spent
considerable amount on special diet and on transportation and the
compensation under this head is also enhanced to ₹15,000/-. As a result
6 of 7
FAO-4242-2001(O&M) -7-
of aforesaid discussion, the compensation to be awarded to petitioner is
re-assessed as under:-
Amount Awarded by Enhanced
Head of Compensation
Tribunal (₹) Amount (₹)
₹35,000
Pain and Sufferings ₹20,000 (₹35,000-₹20,000
=₹15,000/-)
Medical Expenses ₹40,000 -
Loss of Salary (Petitioner) ₹50,000 -
Loss of Salary (Wife) ₹29,000 -
₹60,000
Permanent Disability /
₹50,000 (₹60,000-₹50,000
Loss of Amenities
=₹10,000)
₹15,000
Conveyance & Special
₹11,000 (₹15,000-₹11,000
Diet
=₹4,000/-)
₹2,00,000
Total ₹29,000
(already granted)
16. Accordingly, the present appeal is partly accepted with costs
and petitioner is held entitled to a sum of ₹29,000/- as enhanced
compensation over and above what has been awarded by the Tribunal
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim
petition i.e. 23.05.2000 till realization to be paid by respondents, jointly
and severally.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
31.01.2026 (YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR)
Vishal Vardhan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
